too high for my liking. - I have received the common sense advice to go join some hobby group and claim high status there, and use that to attract women. My body just physically reacts like no, I am not doing this, fuck this. See the other section for reasons I hate hobby groups. - I actually do like some hobbies atleast a little. Like, I'd be happy going to play instruments with some band for example, I just have no interest in like, actually joining their band and being there full-time. I just look at people and I'm like, no, I don't want to hang out with these people. - Maybe I am subconsciously regulating myself to want low status? Because I have been the truth-seeking low status person for most of my life, I might be subconsciously reacting against any group that wishes to grant me high status. Interesting hypothesis, worth considering more. I think making this writeup was useful. I think my single biggest takeaway is that when I go back to Bangalore, I need to find a way to meet people (both men and women) who are not into corporate slavery. I need to find people who are actually serious about some goal that is not money maximisation (or hedonism). text_english/personal/main/I_should_be_more_proud_of_myself_for_not_having_killed_myself_yet.md000644 000765 000024 00000006037 15243357437 034700 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-25 # I should be more proud of myself for not having killed myself yet Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I don't know I was just reading some person's story where they say they've had a bunch of romantic relationships by age 23 and I'm like, lmao what? - Rationally I know this makes sense ofcourse, I've met multiple people like this too if I think enough, it is not that rare also. - But emotionally it feels a bit weird. I think I automatically compare it to myself and I'm like, lol, I was only convinced my life was worth living at the age of 22. Any relationships (romantic or platonic) don't mean much when you're indifferent as to whether you live or die. - So yeah, repeating this so it sticks. I have gone through unbearable hell far worse than I can bear. And I have made it out alive. - I have made it you fuckers! I am still alive. Now you will see who is boss. Main 2 - I don't know, this post does mildly trigger in me feelings like, you have made me suffer, now it is your turn to suffer. "you" = the world - But no, I don't think I want any specific person to suffer. I want to dominate the world yes, I want to reshape it so that all the fuckery that people did to me does not happen again. I want to remake the social fabric so that people similar to people who hurt me don't get to hurt more people similar to me. - And obviously this is going to require lots of violence. So be it. - Most forces of authority don't give up without a fight. Fight fire with fire. - The fact that I am hesitating naming names is itself proof that they still have power. Main 3 - I miss someone. Not naming names. - End of note. Main 4 - Actually not end of note. - Yes really. **The biggest achievement of my entire life is that I have not committed suicide yet.** - From the outside you can easily point to N other achievements. Like okay I made a bunch of money while young or I am smart or educated or not too unattractive or have good friends or whatever - But I don't care about that anywhere as much as the fact that I haven't killed myself. - One of these is way more important than the rest of them combined. I am alive. I have a purpose. I am capable of experiencing happiness. I am steering my life in a direction I actually like, not the direction that ... honestly it makes me too angry to even type it out. - I like being this level of open and honest about my life. I really do believe the alternative is literal trillions of years of human suffering that is kept secret, because the people causing the suffering use their power to force it to stay secret. - Why are you trying to explain yourself to these people? Do you think they will ever get it? - They might, if you write posts more coherently than this. Like, few high-quality notes for others instead of lots of low-quality notes for yourself. - That is not a plan I am executing on right now though. - Good bye. - You are happy. You remember you want to meet who make you happy. There are people I like in my life. I feel warm just thinking about them. text_english/personal/main/current_work_log.md000644 000765 000024 00000160061 15256245502 022674 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-27 # Current work log Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Contains personal info, such as my emotions associated with various projects. I've realised I do actually need to track these emotions in order to make good decisions, even if it means that the resulting document is less professional. ## Update (2026-09-27) - If you cannot figure out the blobdata setup in the next 2-3 days then abandon it and forget about it. Your priority is to **not** work on anything morally safe. Go on the attack. Study smart contract security was the original plan and it still makes sense for it to be the plan. ## Update (2026-09-25) (Note - in case anyone else is reading, these are brainstorming notes, not finalised) update - Public backup setup - Do not use IPFS. Do not use eth.limo. Do not use petallock. Do not use ENS subnames. - Do not assume any ETH address (such as `samuelshadrach.eth`) or DNS (such as `samuelshadrach.com`) or literally anything, will remain persistent and in your control forever. For opsec reasons, assume everything can be rotated anytime, everything can be seized by law enforcement, and so on. The only safe backup is airgapped LUKS-encrypted hard disks, and the only safe proof-of-identity is a video proof or irl meeting. Everything else is untrusted and ephemeral. - Only use a single ENS name that is immediately burned to zero address, and use its txt record to a) point to ethereum blobdata of content b) ethereum blobdata of video proof c) provide short instructions for how to decode the blobdata. Like `samuelshadrach202608.eth` or similar. - Avoiding reusing the donation address for publishing to blobdata, as publishing is unfortunately still more complex and has more likelihood of bugs. Keep the donation address clean. Use throwaway addresses for publishing. - While you are at it, also update the video proofs, and do a bunch of pending opsec stuff (not shared here for obvious reasons). - Your priorities are number one - opsec and censorship-resistance, number two - simplicity. - Ensure private data cannot be made public and ensure public data cannot be made private. - Also - Need an ephemeral PGP key to sign the entire archive. Video proof has to narrate this entire fingerprint. - Basically you need a PGP key and ETH address that are somewhat persistent, that are intended for others to send messages or money to. (You already have this.) And you separately need a PGP key and ETH address that are ephemeral, and only valid for one single day when one single archive is made. - It is better to not overload the usage of the same keys for both communication and archival. Maintain separate communication/donation keys, and archival keys. - Side Note - I wish the entire archival setup could run on TAILS lol, it would be so clean. Why is uploading to ethereum blobdata such a big mess? Hold on this entire thing is still too much of a mess. Things I need - XMR donation address. ETH donation address. Needs to be live - PGP key for communication. Needs to be live. - Lots of content on samuelshadrach.com - Video proofs for all the live addresses and keys, and for the validity of the content. - In an ideal world, the video proofs should be live (like, best case scenario is I sit on a 24x7 livestream or something). - However, making videos is costly (in terms of my time and attention), hence I am reducing it to a certain frequency like 3 months. - Why is it costly? - Because I need to bathe and shave before making a recording? - Because I need a quiet space with no noise, and clean background that ideally does not leak information about my physical location? - Because I want freedom to disappear some days for opsec reasons, without being asked questions? - An ETH address to publish censorship-resistant archives. - In an ideal world, this should also be live. - However, ethereum blobdata costs money. Hence publishing infrequently. - Actually on second thought - blobdata does not actually cost that much? - It is like $0.10 per GB. My entire history of text archives is probably not more than 1 GB. (Current state is ~4 MB.) - Assume I publish entire archive once a day, that gives 0.10 * 0.004 * 365 = $0.146 / year. That is insanely cheap? What if I stopped using a website entirely and just published to blobdata lmao? - My non_text_non_video is 43 MB. Assume that was also published once a day, you get $1.5 / year. - My video folder is 65 GB. Assume that was published every 18 days. 65 * 0.10 * 365/18 = $131 / year - Wait what? - If I can manage to get my users to install some blobdata decoder script, I actually have no use for a website at all. That is insane? - Think more here. - I can actually make blobdata the ground truth, and make my website simply a mirror. - The previous calculations still don't make sense. Ethereum blobdata total is (6 * 128 KB / 12s) * 18 days = 6 * 128 * 18 * 86400 / 12 = ~94.9 GB. I can't be claiming 65 GB of that for myself, that is imposible. Conclusion - Video proof setup is clear to me. Generate an ephemeral PGP signing key, use that to sign everything, record video of me phonetically narrating this key (possibly using a second device?), then wipe the key soon after. Reason why this can't be done every day is also clear to me. - Actual hold on, why do I even need a key for this? What if I just narrate SHA256 hash of the archive? Lmfao. Holy shit this was so stupid. I am glad I got rid of the need for a key. - Blobdata setup is not yet clear to me. Need to think more here. Update - Video proofs done. Blobdata backup setup not yet done. ## Update (2026-09-16) TO DO for later - Setup one-click pipeline to backup website to blobdata and eth.limo (IPFS) burned addresses (so it can't be overwritten) - (Update - 2026-09-24) See also: [PetalLock by Micah Zoltu and team](https://petal-lock.dark.florist) ## Update (2026-09-13) List of methods of obtaining information, along with time required to make a serious attempt, and probability of success of attempt List of methods - "physical -> trashcan" - 12 weeks (assuming visa) - medium - "social circle -> payment platform" - 12-48 weeks - low at first, medium eventually - **(currently working on this)** - "social circle -> social engg" - 1-12 weeks - low - "cyber -> cyberattack" - 12-48 weeks - low - "cyber -> grey hat crypto hacks (not on your enemy) to get funding" - 12-48 weeks - low Evidence backing all these estimates of time and estimates of success probability - pulled out of my ass, based on my limited knowledge of case studies for all of them Learn by actually doing these attacks, not by overthinking and endless research on which attack is best. Move fast. Note - You are currently doing the ham radio prep. Once done, get the fuck back to work lol. Ethereum smart contract security -> floating point errors ## Update (2026-09-12) Append to networking backlog - Meet some RAW agents - They have similar interests as me such as information gathering and learning languages and so on. - **The main hard line I am not willing to compromise on (even if someone genuinely threatens to kill me) is that I want information to be leaked publicly, not passed on privately to an intelligence agency (including RAW)** - [Some details kept private for political / opsec reasons.] ## Update (2026-08-26) Note for future self - As of right now you are mostly focussed on the "social circle -> payment" and "cybersecurity" pathways. This is fine. Make sure to do them fast but also do them well. - In future however, you have to necessarily also attempt the "social circle -> social engineering", "social circle -> just ask nicely", "physical -> plant hidden cameras/mics", "physical -> search trash cans" pathways. - **You are not allowed to give up until you have tried all the pathways, no matter how schlepy they are.** - You should never try the "physical -> kidnap" pathway. If you have reached that level of desperation, you should go bomb TSMC instead. This is worst case option. - Make sure to do everything fast, you are only one man and you have to ideally attempt **all** of the above pathways in the next couple years. Note to self - Use phases of social isolation during actual attacks - Whenever you are actively attempting an attack, you should isolate from your social circle somewhat and move your website into read-only mode for the duration of the attack. - You should attempt attacks in phases (like few weeks or a couple months at max) so you don't need to permanently stay in social isolation. - When the attack is over, you can then take conscious decision what parts are to be released publicly (either online or to your social circle) and what parts are to be kept private. - As of 2026-08-28 this is not necessary because you are not actively attempting an attack, you are mainly upskilling. But in the near future, it will become necessary. Be ready. ## Update (2026-08-21) Breaking social versus cyber versus physical security - To break security, you need to break social circle, physical security or cybersecurity. - I thought okay, social circle seems like the best bet. These AI company employees probably have dumb non-technical people in their social circle. - But now to break security of those people, you again need to break social circle, physical security or cybersecurity. - Again I think, social circle seems like the best bet. Attempt any of the most braindead attacks on this [wikipedia list of social engineering attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)). - Unfortunately, I find this boring? I find OSINT boring. I find social engineering boring. I find actual cybersecurity fun. - One thing I seem pretty confident on is that breaking physical security is Not the Way. Every attempt requires someone to risk going to prison or atleast face an expensive lawsuit. Even the mild stuff, like searching trash cans or obtaining CCTV of public spaces. Staying outside the country is the OP strategy and that means you can't do physical attacks. Physical attacks are best done by people in the country, who can afford the expensive lawsuits afterwards (like politicians, like senior people in media houses, etc). Decision to take - Part of me is like, just shut the fuck up and go do the boring thing. Do the [schlep work](https://paulgraham.com/schlep.html). OSINT and social engineering is the schlep work, just go do that. - Part of me is like, cybersecurity is actually more fun. Also it has instrumental value, for instance if I actually build a reputation as a skilled hacker, I can probably raise a lot more money this way. There are some projects I wanna work on (listed below) where becoming skilled at cybersecurity is a mandatory criteria. - Undecided. Weakly leaning towards just studying cybersecurity. But I also wanna be aware that some years later if I am still a failure and my runway has ended, then this may have been the decision that led to that. - **Update - Maybe I should be more data-driven here.** Actually go research details of some previous attacks and figure out for which of them was the social engg part load-bearing, and for which ones the cyber part was load-bearing. Ethereum smart contract security - Ethereum smart contract security - most common classes of attacks are access control, re-entrancy and bad fixed point math. - I am considering specialising in just studying fixed point math a lot more. It seems more like it exploits the footguns in the EVM itself, as opposed to footguns in solidity. I don't like solidity but I like advanced math (like price curves and shit) which might scare other people away. - I am not very sure why I am studying smart contract security. I just told myself, okay this has some overlap with cybersecurity in general (which is true), and this is useful for some specific projects I wanna complete (like deploying a UMA OO-based whistleblower bounty system). - See again, I need clarity. Am I studying smart contract security to do some specific project or just because I find it fun? Honestly maybe I should allow myself to have a little fun, and come back to specific projects later? Unclear. Maybe I need some sort of deadline? - If I am deliberately telling myself I am allowed to do the fun thing instead of complete a specific project, maybe I also need a deadline by when I will go back and also complete the specific projects? ## Update (2026-08-13) Side project for later maybe never - Document how to use geth cli (using RPC / light client), foundry cli (using RPC) and tornado cash local frontend on TAILS OS, so that you can transfer ETH from an not-so-private computer to TAILS OS without either installing bulky software (like a browser or metamask) or leaking any metadata (mapping withdrawal IP/address/timestamp/etc to deposit IP/address/timestamp/etc) Append to backlog of networking idea I am not currently acting on, but may in future - Cold email everyone on this [list of militias in the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_militia_organizations_in_the_United_States) - Cold email people on the Pause AI signatory list - Motherfucker you need to build better cold emailing infra, just like you realised a long time back ## Update (2026-07-28) - Shifted this document from professional to personal section of website. Long overdue ## Update (2026-07-26) - Your only professional goal for the next one week is to make sense of the UMA OO contracts you just deployed. Don't get distracted by any side project if you can help it. - Your only non-professional goal is to figure out how to meet more women (join a hobby group with balanced gender ratio, get advice on hinge profile or A-B test it yourself). This makes you more optimistic about life. Also ensure you still have atleast two meetings with humans per week. This ensures you are less neurotic. Don't get too sidetracked by any goals besides this if you can help it. ## Update (2026-07-20) **Decision made - Double down on your insight that attacking social circle is The Way** - Don't pay your target (such as Ilya or Demis or whoever) to defect, pay your target's social circle to defect - Don't provide ideology to turn your target to your side, provide ideology to turn your target's social circle to your side - Don't hack/phish/etc into your target's devices, hack/phish/etc into your target's social circle's devices All this often requires first finding out who even is in the social circle in the first place. Why? - All your target are smart, they are ideologically driven and unlikely to turn so easily, and they have good opsec. - All your target's social circles have lots of dumb people, who are not as ideologically driven, and who have shit opsec. Your target's social circle likely knows important info about your target but is more poorly equipped to defend this information. Examples of social circle - Partner, Parents, adult children, etc - Chefs, cleaners, etc - Hobby groups outside of work - University or startup friends outside of work ## Update (2026-07-18) Side projects to work on later, maybe never - improve UX of cypherpunks mailing list archives - write a script to crosspost my website to ethereum blobdata. (I wish eth.limo or someone official actually implemented a standard, otherwise I will end up inventing some ad-hoc format) ## Update (2026-07-03) - Projects I am not working on because I am a noob at writing secure software - Funding for whistleblowers/hackers/etc - more important - Ethereum smart contract that can rely on UMA OO to decide when to payout - more important - Ethereum smart contract that can verify DKIM headers - Whistleblower tools - Smart contracts for ETH/XMR atomic swaps - Port some AI model to Tails OS, for automated redaction - GrapheneOS could always have another dev to help them ## Update (2026-06-29) - Security - Social circle - Social circle is by far my strongest bet here, for how to break security of US AI companies and US govt. - I was surprised by how easy some basic scraping was, these people use the same youtube, twitter, instagram, hinge, etc that everyone else uses. - My main bottleneck here is okay, let's say even if I did have the social graph, what to do next? Either need to pay money or provide a sufficiently persuasive ideology and currently I have neither. - I can see the point in doing it anyway, just get the social graph and cold DM everyone. Get more surface area on the problem, maybe you will learn something. But the hard problem is still unsolved, either providing the leaker with money or ideology. - For providing money, if you can build govt-resistant oracles and smart contracts and shit, it may help earn trust of the donor, since you don't have to handle the money personally then. But in any case, you have to network with actual donors here to get their feedback, they are the customer here, there is no way around this. - Physical security - You can violently break physical security by let's say, actually breaking into someone's office and stealing their devices or actually kidnapping someone or similar. High risk, high sacrifice, in-person. Not a good bet atleast to start. - You can sneakily do this, by let's say, plugging a USB into someone else's computer or watching them through CCTV or getting access to their computer when it is unattended or with a "friend" or similar. This sounds not impossible but also, not my first bet. - Cybersecurity - The only reason I am looking into cybersecurity is because AI is shifting the offence-defence balance. This is what makes it an okay first bet. Otherwise it would be a bet but not a first bet. ## Update (2026-06-12) Long backlog of networking ideas I might not act on anytime soon - online - selectively search and cold DM more people on twitter - prioritise multiple circles - EA/LW-adjacent, cybersecurity adjacent, CCC adjacent, cryptocurrency adjacent, people in bangalore - "reply guy" more on twitter to do the above better - same as above but focus on personal blogs (AI pause related) and/or cold emails instead of twitter DMs - irl - attend more irl events with mission-focussed people in blr - stand with a poster outside irl spots with tech/engineering background people - visit SF or london for short time period to meet people irl - improve pitch - rewrite my cofounder doc in a twitter-style instead of lesswrong-style, I can't make the doc popular on lesswrong anyway. consider adding a short video too, video DMs do better than text DMs - run prolific.com surveys on how to pitch it better, and what the effect of leaks would be on AI pause - ask people I know irl how to pitch it better - on your own, think more about ideology and memes and so on, on how to pitch it better - (Update 2026-06-14) **This point seems important.** Refer to personal notes for why. Lack of time is not the only bottleneck here, you are underconfident about your ability to manage social interactions well. I am currently making the bet that actually doing valuable work is higher leverage than all of this. If I do valuable work it will spread on its own via social media. But if I haven't made much progress even after few months, I should consider switching to doing networking full-time for atleast a month. I am happy I wrote this short post. All these ideas having been floating in my head for a while now, it is nice to have them all collated in the same place. ## Update (2026-05-24) note to self - Spend atleast a day or two (but not more) looking into how indian OSINT and cybersecurity startups that work with govt, managed to raise a seed round ## Update (2026-05-23) Not doing OSINT anymore. Fuck this. - I want to go do something really hard instead, like try to understand linux kernel. - OSINT is such a stupid [schlep work](https://paulgraham.com/schlep.html) lol. Like, scraping twitter, or more like scraping scrapes of twitter. Or scraping youtube transcripts. It is both expensive and super annoying. I wanted to map out a social graph of everyone involved, but this is just a sad schelp work. - Once I have more money, I will pay some other dev to do stupid shit like this. - I need to go do something that is actually hard. - I don't know, it's like, watching the arms race on both sides, scrapers versus scrapees, and you're like, "haan bhai, yeh sab kar lo pehle. kood ja. ghus ja uske andar" - I am tired of working on scraping related projects, there is no novelty in it anymore. And OSINT is fundamentally just yet another scraping project. - There is novelty in trying to understand zero days though, so maybe I should just go do that. - Also like, if I had the money, I'm sure I can just find some guy on dark web and purchase all these datasets from them. I can't be the first person trying to scrape all faces on Earth to reverse face search, or trying to scrape all tweets of famous people, or similar. "Instead of asking "what problem should I solve?" ask "what problem do I wish someone else would solve for me?"" - PG - Idk, by this logic, yes I definitely wish someone else had published a torrent of all youtube transcripts, and a torrent of all tweets and tweet likes, and a torrent of all faces on the internet. If these torrents existed, then extracting a social graph out of it would be the easy part of the job. - Maybe I should reconsider? And just do the schlep thing? - Why is this such a schlep thing though? It is ultimately just cookie rotation, right? You ideally want a large number of users from whom you can get their IPs and cookies, and put them in a pool. - ok for IPs specifically, they're busy tracking reputations of IPs, so you can't just purchase any random IP range and scrape entire youtube - Idk, what I am understanding is that if I want to scrape entire youtube: - I need to go hack into a few thousand PCs atleast, get everyone's cookies, then use those to scrape. - Or I need to fake IP reputations which also doesn't seem straightforward. - Or I need to get thousands of users to voluntarily hand over their cookies to me. Like, build some truecaller-like scraping app, you contribute your own scrapes and get access to everyone else's scrapes. - You know what, maybe I should go purchase some residential proxies, atleast as an experiment, and see how it goes. ## Update (2026-05-16) I think I should spend next 6 months actually getting good at hacking and doxxing and similar? Find a lower stakes real world arena to test your skills though, don't aim directly at the US govt immediately - I need to find cofounder, or get good at hacking, or get a bit more clarity on morals - To meet people in US/UK/EU in-person, I need visa. To get visa I need lot of money or job. I might as well spend 6 months getting good at hacking and then get employed in a cybersecurity company somewhere (possibly in india itself, idk), this will make visa trivial. I don't see a better use of my time. - Online networking sucks ass for the type of project you wanna do, don't waste time on it. Only do in-person networking. **Reminding myself of this for the n-th time** - **Write less words, write more code.** - **Do not work on anything morally safe, like defence or supporting whistleblowers. Work on offence.** Note: Our edge is that we are not as bound by morality or legality as other orgs, and we are hopefully more technically competent - there are plenty of investigative journalist orgs who are doing things within tighter moral or legal constraints - gpt-5.5 list: `Proof News, The Markup, 404 Media, Lighthouse Reports, AlgorithmWatch, Pulitzer Center AI Accountability Network, AI Forensics, ProPublica, Rest of World, MuckRock, The Midas Project, Lucy Parsons Labs` - Conclusion - if we are doing cold DMs and OSINT, we have to do the stuff that other investigative jouranlists aren't doing, either because they are technically incompetent, or because they feel constrained by morality, or because they feel constrained by legality - otherwise yes we are doing hacking - Between the two, I think we should do cold DMs and OSINT first, simply because it seems easier ## Update (2026-05-11) back from russia trip. lets fucking go ## Update (2026-04-21) I now think it's waste of time for me to sit and redact my notes and post them here too often. I have private notes that are messy and contain info that I will have to redact in order to post here. I might post here, just not so often. I am locked in to the cyberattack plan, and am focussed on either a) find cofounder or b) get good at some niche of hacking myself. (There is low hanging fruit like building redaction dataset, build doxxing tool, phone people and get camera footage. However I think I should just try to get good at hacking, it doesnt seem like rocket science. Also, it is possible I will soon have to redact details of attack capabilities too, so that the defenders reading my blog can't use this.) ## Update (2026-03-31) no social media - There are tiktoks with superexponential growth curves. It is possible, in theory, for some anti-ASI youtuber to crack the same formula at the right moment (likely when many people are suffering already). - However, I don't want to gamble the fate of the entire civilisation on taking the high-minded idealist route. I will genuinely dislike myself as a person if I was this idealist. meet people - We continue with the leaking plan. I have hit diminishing returns on studying morality of this by myself. **I have to meet people in-person to a) discuss morality b) potentially find a cofounder.** "in-person" is very important here. It is very hard to get people to discuss such stuff on video call or from video DMs. (Although yes I should try more video DMs too.) redaction - In parallel with all this, I will work on redaction tools or doxxing tools or pizza index or similar. Get quick wins on projects that move toward your goals. Build momentum. - **Maybe important** - build a redaction dataset, so you can actually test your redaction tool on real world environments. Make contact with reality. ## Update (2026-03-26) The crux for my entire life plan seems to be the possibility of superexponential growth curves in youtube follower counts. See also: [The only plan more ambitious than mine, that I believe in](../personal/main/the_only_plan_more_ambitious_than_mine_that_I_believe_in.md) **Maybe I should spend a month just trying to understand whether superexponential growth curves exist or not?** Tick tock the doom clock is still ticking. But this is the other solution I **have to** spend more time on. ## Update (2026-03-13) I am choosing to miss the deadline. Three steps I must take now to get clarity on moral values: - read the politics books I got recommended - check how many people in 'software developers turned activist' reference class lost their partners - figure out communication norms with AI company employees, before I go destroy their lives. strongly consider cold DMing them once you're clear about this ## Update (2026-03-11) I can finish the cofounder doc by tonight midnight if I really wanted to, badly enough. Unfortunately I still seem to have some confusion about moral values, that seems important to resolve. ## Update (2026-03-08) My cofounder doc should be ready in another 2-3 days max. After that, get good at cold emails is ofcourse one immediate option. Travel to Russia or US is an option that will take atleast 1-2 months more at min. Another option I can immediately is to literally go stand with a placard in one of the tech-centered localities in Bangalore. The goal is not protest, it is not even raising awareness or persuading anyone, it is just putting up a selector signal to find a cofounder who already agrees with me 80%. I can be more conservative about what to put on the poster, to ensure police don't remove me. I can only persuade people who already align with me atleast 80%, to become my cofounder. As I said earlier, blackhat-pill some doomers, or doom-pill some blackhat hackers, these are the only two routes. **Spend atleast one month full-time, just hunting for a cofounder. The rewards seem more than worth it.** Fuck job, we are not getting a job. I'd rather bang on stranger's doors and beg for a visa, than do a job to get a visa. Only half-joking. ## Update (2026-02-28) Do not waste a lot more time on the morality and redaction policy and whatnot. You are currently incompetent anyway so you have to enforce this on the whole team anyway. Priority right now is getting a team, even to explore this idea further. Prioritise networking. Git gud at cold emails. Cold emails are networking on hard mode. Browse all russian social media forums to check yudkowsky discourse penetration on all of them. Also visit russia is high priority, accelerate this plan. ## Update (2026-02-23) Hypothetically, if I could figure out a way to do the cyberhacking plan that I am morally okay with and feel okay about, then I am actually more excited about the cyberhacking project than the persuasion cluster of projects. I increasingly think the actual answer to this question is going to basically boil down to which plan I find more exciting. If I could get clear on the morality stuff of leaking/hacking, it is definitely the more exciting cluster of projects for me personally. I need to simultaneously ignore the moral codes of most people around me irl, and also find a moral code I have lot of internal conviction on, when working on this. ## update (2026-02-22) I think I should read some books by important politicians. I have already read plenty of books by self-made SV billionaires. I have also read plenty of blogs by software developers turned activists. Politicians are the third "reference class of true ambition" whose decision-making frameworks I want more familiarity with. I am stuck between two broad clusters - the persuasion cluster and the cyberattack cluster. I don't actually know how far I will get if I spend 5 years on either plan, there's too many unknowns for me to guess it in advance. Too many small experiments I still can run in both clusters, too much data still left to collect. Examples of experiments I can still run in the persuasion cluster - cold email a lot more people (across lots of audiences) and try to doompill them and ask them to start a social media channel. Quite bluntly, I could easily spend an entire year doing personalised cold emails if I had to. There really are that many people on Earth. Important people here include youtubers and politicians both late stage and early-stage (like Pause AI is doing), but it's not restricted to just them. - Figure out more protest spots in India where the police is unlikely to remove me. My last protest being not a complete failure inspires me to try more of this. - Do some door-to-door visiting of people and try to doompill them - Really map out the conversation branches of a doompilling conversation well, and maybe even build a voice-to-video app for this (text-to-text app works primarily on nerds) - Build a drone swarm to send fliers - ??? (many more ideas still possible here) Examples of experiments I can still run in the leaking/cyberhacking cluster - build an LLM-based automated redaction tool - finish what is left of the whistleblower guide, 3 months research left, improve SEO and web design, find a lawyer to finish it up - visit conferences like CCC or DEFCON or similar, for more in-person conversations with hackers on ASI doom and hacking AI companies / US govt - cold email more hackers in full transparency regarding ASI doom and hacking AI companies / US govt - actually figure out some niche in hacking I can succeed at myself - think more on redaction policies, targets, philosophy etc - especially if I pursue the "blow the world open" plan not "leak redacted altman's info" plan - actually purchase the PII datasets and build the doxxing tool I started working on - ??? (many more ideas still possible here) ## update (2026-02-18) Build a voice-to-video interactive doompiller app, based on either liron shapira videos or your own videos from the ai summit stuff. You now have a metric shit ton of evidence (actually list it out) that people take you (samuel, and also people in general) more seriously when they interact with you in person. AI summit stuff might easily be the most productive day of your entire past one year. holy shit. think it through and maybe replicate this shit day after tmrw, but slightly more professional and with a friend as a cameraman. ## update (2026-02-11) - I have gone back into "personal issue fixing mode" around substance abuse, not in "world fixing mode" right now, though they are both interconnected. I'll be back at this soon. Go see personal section of website for more of this. ## Update (2026-02-08) - here's a suggestion for a new plan - what? - literally go collect lots of historical data on what made people persuasive in various contexts. Study salesmen, study politicians, study pickup artists, study billionaires, etc. Names of people, and numbers indicating how persuasive they were. - why? - I am worried that scalable persuasion is close to the literal only thing that matters, and all my number two plans are shit compared to number one plan which is cracking scalable persuasion. If I just go aimlessly read about what various protest movements did, or what various billionaires did, or what the intelligence community did, or how status and groupthink work, or any of the other 20 fucking nerdsnipes sitting on my website, I seem concerned that maybe none of this gets you any new insights into how to do scalable persuasion. - I am also worried that actually figuring out scalable persuasion is going to require lot of creative new hit and trial, and this means talking to non-technical people 24x7, and I fucking hate this. And like, this is true. Someone else who is not me, has to sit and do a lot of hit and trial. They have to talk to literally hundreds of people in person, and make hundreds of videos, and all of these will require creative new ideas, and only then do they have any shot at all, at pulling this off. - But maybe this person will still get atleast some value out of lots of historical data collected by me. - holy fuck did I just solve this? okay then, we have a plan ## Update (2026-02-08, minor edits 2026-02-10) - ugh this post is too long, lemme shorten it by rewriting some parts - I seem confused between three plans - Personally go cyberattack AI companies and US govt, to leak secrets about them that make them look bad in the eyes of the public. Figure out some of the moral and other implications, sure, but also I ultimately have to actually execute the first attacks myself, not wait around for someone else to do it. - Keep writing on my blog about ASI risk and politics so that I can understand it better myself. Eventually I can use this understanding to play some small role in either persuading the public about ASI risk myself, or in persuading someone to go persuade the public. Playing a big role seems hard for me to do, but maybe I can still play some small indirect role, maybe even in a way I can't immediately forecast. - Become popular in a way that has nothing to do with ASI risk - for example, by blogging about unrelated topics, or building an app on unrelated topic - and then run ads about ASI risk on this site - I use two key heuristics to decide what to work on - Do I find this work enjoyable or atleast somewhat tolerable? Or do I start to build an active dislike for the work once I start working on it? - I can probably only work on something long-term if I can tolerate it, and I can probably only become world-historically good at it if I work on it long-term. By long-term I mean atleast a few years. - I think the fastest way to evaluate whether I enjoy something is often to just actually work on it for some time (few days to few months max). - Do I think this work will be highly impactful? - I think what I ultimately care most about is ensuring my work puts the world in a significantly better state by the time I'm dead. - It is hard for me to describe what "better" means here, because I still don't understand it well. - I definitely want to lock in some sort of good "system" that is likely to preserve itself "long-term". - The utopian ideal would be a mathematical invariant that you can prove on the universe as a turing machine, that would persist till the end of the universe. A slightly more practical version of that would be some ideology or system of governance or social norm, that could persist multiple centuries. A slightly more practical version of that might be to figure out how to delay ASI right now, so that there is enough time to actually sit and invent this new system. - I actually seem to care about some mix of all three. It is tempting to just smush all the nuances here and call myself a longtermist with high discount rate. But I also think I have multiple other disagreements with utilitarianism, so I won't do that. - Actually predicting what actions executed today will lead to this better world is really hard. I seem to be experimenting with many heuristics here. - In practice, I seem to mainly use some mix of two heuristics to evaluate this - getting fast immediate feedback (usually likes, votes, dollars etc coming from some target audience) and the whole galaxy brain Yudkowsky-style "attempt to predict all major consequences of your actions today all the way to the literal end of the universe". - Given these three main plans, and these heuristics, here's the short version - cyberattack plan - The strongest reason to pursue the cyberattack plan is the following. - I looked at software developers who turned political activists, and then actually tried to fix big picture political or geopolitical problems in the world, often by inventing some new galaxy-brained plan. The base rate of success of these people is very low. Out of the few people who have achieved some actual success on this, many of them have basically used geopolitical arbitrage. The Internet is global so there are ways to break laws of country A using implicit or explicit help of country B. - This mainly includes all the people supporting govt whistleblowers (assange, snowden, securedrop, etc), and all the people breaking financial law (satoshi, vitalik etc). - To a smaller extent, I would also include all the people breaking copyright law (bittorrent, anna's archive, etc). I think size of their impact is smaller but still noticeable. - To a smaller extent, I would also include all the youtubers trying to break censorship laws, by influencing country X while living in country Y (can't post names but they exist, google them). Typically many of these youtubers don't have a tech background, hence the "smaller extent". - To a smaller extent, I would also include all the people breaking drug law (Tor, ross ulbricht, etc). I don't actually know if the impact of increasing international drug trade is positive or negative, and it is small, but it is noticeable. - To a smaller extent, I would also include all the billionaires and politicians playing the whole game of trying to enforce using import/export controls in their own country, and then trying to bypass the controls of other countries. - See also: [Why I love Julian Assange](./why_I_love_julian_assange.md) - The second strongest reason to pursue this is that some hackers of medium skill are claiming AI is opening new holes, and Zuckerberg is claiming it, and a few others. I am not convinced the hackers of highest skill level are actually claiming this. But also, AI is going to get better, so I can totally imagine this actually opening up in another 1 or 2 years. - The strongest reason to not pursue this plan is that personally going and hurting other people's lives feels not great, even if I rationally think it is justified. - I could think more on the morality of it, to try and mitigate downsides. But yes, it is pretty clear to me there will be large downsides despite my best efforts to mitigate, and a bunch of this stuff will only get figured out from practice not theory. (This is especially true if what I finally settle down on, is some version of 'attack everyone' not 'only attack altman/amodei/etc') - If I work on this, I will have to make my peace with this fact, and move on. - I think a bunch of the projects listed above have caused atleast some harm, but also some potential greater good. For instance, atleast some artists have been hurt by torrent, and you can go read their full-time complaints on the internet in response. Atleast some people have been hurt by increased drug access, and you can go read their accounts too if you search hard enough. Crypto has obviously increased the scale at which market manipulation happens, to the point where suicide rates in crypto are a popular inside joke. - In these examples, the fact that greater good exceeds harm was justified on mostly libertarian terms, not utilitarian terms. It is justified that increased freedom for everyone is worth some specific harms to specific people. - I seem to be going atleast somewhat in the explicitly opposite direction. I want to reduce everyone's freedom atleast a little. I don't think people should be building ASIs or bioweapons or a number of other future weapons in their garage. I am trying to figure out if we can reduce everyone's freedom together, instead of the default which is reducing individual freedom at the expense of the govt becoming more powerful. - The second strongest reason to not pursue the cyberattack plan is also above. - The base rate of success is actually still very low. The best way to have large political/geopolitical impact is still to become a billionaire or a politician, not to pursue some novel galaxybrain plan that might influence the world but leave you personally not very powerful at the end. - blog plan - The strongest reason to pursue the blog plan is the following. - We actually know of lots of youtubers who have acquired significant political power in the last 5-10 years. (We are yet to see many of them literally enter the election themselves, but they clearly control the votebank regardless of whether they win.) - There are also atleast a few anti-ASI youtubers now. If I can figure out even some small indirect way to help them crack persuasion, this could be worth it. - The second strongest reason is that I do seem to want to do this. - I seem to be in a flow state that is somewhere between passion and neurotic obsession. It would be very easy for me to just let this continue running, and see what happens. It would be a bit harder for me to interrupt flow yet again, just to go start on some new unrelated project. - I think Paul Graham is basically correct that writing helps you think. You can see lots of things are not completely wrong, but subtly off when you look at your first writeup. And this keeps annoying you until you actually go fix it. People at lesswrong might call this "carving reality at the joints" or "noticing confusion". - I am definitely experiencing this firsthand right now, so it is hard for me to abandon my blog at what feels like a midway point. - ads plan - The strongest reason to pursue the plan of just building some app or blog unrelated to ASI risk is that lots of people succeed at this every year, these are better understood paths in general, so I will get a lot of good advice. - The strongest reason to not pursue this plan is that I somehow seem to completely lose all motivation, when I consider working on something instumentally in this way. - Most self-made tech billionaires solve some hard problem in society. I will have to pick some hard problem unrelated to ASI risk, go solve that first, and then use the resulting attention of people I've gained. - I don't actually care about solving some other problem for society at large. - The second strongest reason to not pursue this plan is it is a two step plan, where both steps are hard and time-consuming, and maybe there's no time for all of this? - First there is the hard problem of becoming a tech billionaire. Then there is the hard problem of building an anti-AI political movement, as a tech billionaire. Each of these seem like things that take atleast 5 years, just in isolation. - Simply hearing about this plan sounds exhausting. I seem to implicitly assume that building one big project is exhausting, hence building two will be twice as exhausting. But maybe that's not actually true in practice, for people who do this, maybe some people actually enjoy this? - The third strongest reason to not pursue this plan is that I am not very convinced ads are very effective at growing a political movement from scratch? - I definitely feel this mostly strongly about social media ads, but I also feel this way atleast a little about print ads or billboard ads. - I seem to believe that ads mainly only add fuel to fire, after you already have a successful business or political campaign built without one. I'm not very sure about this. - If this is true, that means you can't just paste a link to yudkowsky's videos on your website. You have to actually sit and design an anti-AI political campaign that is successful on its own merits, and that is really hard. --- 2026-02-08 #### Current projects - idk #### Potential future projects - Learn hacking. - Most cheap cyberattacks are spray-and-pray, and most targeted cyberattacks are expensive. Want to understand why. See also: [Low value cyberattacks are spray and pray](./low_value_cyberattacks.md) - For now, the goal would just be to understand if I enjoy this and can get good at it quickly. I don't have a lot of money, so I need to figure out some niche in cyberhacking where I can achieve practical results without lot of money. - The ambitious end goal would be to cyberattack AI companies and US govt, to leak secrets about them that make them look bad in the eyes of the public. - Update (2026-02-06): I seem to have some mild ugh field around this project. The actual ugh field at this point is not even about my internal confusion around morality of this, or fear of being cut off by even more people, it's the fear that I might fail. I actually feel relatively more okay about the social ostracism thing now, compared to earlier. I think fear of failing is not a good reason to stop, and I should just force myself to go work on this inspite of minor ugh field. - Read and write more about politics on AI risk, for technical audience. - For now, the goal would be to myself get more clarity on all aspects of this, be it on morality, on previous protest movements, and so on. After that, the goal would be to rewrite all this in a way that is persuasive to other people working on AI risk, so they follow the plans I endorse. - Multiple people have asked me to sit and read history of lots of previous protest movements. I think this is useful, and maybe I will do this. But also, the biggest missing ingredient is sufficiently persuasive leaders. I don't think I can become such a leader. - If I can't become such a leader myself, I can't get a lot of power this way. I have to pick a path where I end up atleast somewhat powerful if I succeed. - update (2026-02-06) - I seem obsessed with this. But also, maybe I should go read more history and do less zero-to-one thinking. I seem to be hitting diminishing returns on it. - I also have spoken to atleast one person (can't say who) who is attempting to persuade people at scale on ASI risks. - It is not obvious to me how I can help such a person. - The primary advice they need is on how to become persuasive, both on how to be persuasive regarding ASI risk in particular, and how to be persuasive on social media in general. - I don't have good advice for them myself, beyond a few posts here on the lessons I learned trying to be persuasive myself. - I also don't have the ability to send them content or contacts with good advice. There's a lots of half-decent advice online that mostly lacks empirical backing. A lot of people with really good advice are running their own independent channels. Also, beyond a point, the advice does get somewhat specialised to one's target audience. - Apart from this, they just need to automate all other aspects of their work - be it hiring a cameraman or actor or video editor or similar. - This way they can spend full-time just getting good at persuasion. This is not that hard for them to do on their own AFAIK, so I don't see why they would need my help. Actually being persuasive at scale on youtube is way harder than figuring out how to hire a good video editor. - They might ask for funding, although it's not very clear to me how funding helps them. - Funding just helps automate the easy parts of the job (cameraman, video editor etc) so you can figure out the hard part which is persuasion. I am not that convinced that studios with bigger initial budgets will necessarily do that much better compared to studios with smaller initial budgets. - I'm unsure how many people in EA/LW spaces can actually be persuaded in good faith, to organise protests or run social media or similar. This is my key uncertainty for deciding how much time to devote to this plan of trying to persuade others in EA/LW spaces to listen to me. - Many of the junior people in EA/LW/AI safety spaces seem like people with no principles of their own, and will go for whichever job gets them high pay and status. I should just make money and hire these people, not waste my time convincing them. - Many of the senior people in EA/LW/AI safety spaces seem malevolent on purpose. They are well aware that they are colluding with the US govt, and have some vague hope that they will be part of the leadership when ASI does radically centralise power. - There are definitely some people who can be persuaded. But it is not clear if I should really invest my time on this. - Become popular in some way unrelated to ASI risk, and then run ads on ASI risks later. For instance, I could work on some software app (like my discovery / search algo work) or some blog or some youtube channel. - I'm still quite unsure on the impact of this path. Conventional wisdom is that ads primarily add fuel to the fire once organic reach is already successful. If your idea is naturally memetic (r >> 1), then ads could help it grow even faster. If your idea is naturally not memetic (r ~ 1), then ads might not help much. - As of 2026-01, basically nobody on Earth seems to have a sufficiently memetic framing of the problem of ASI risks. There is no piece of content where I can look at the content and say, "okay, let's spend $100M on social media ads on this content, and boom, problem solved". - I can imagine this changing in the near future. Maybe it will be useful to have a platform from which you can signal boost anything, after ASI risks have already become somewhat popular in society, because you can then signal boost that stuff in the future. - Ideally I should get more actual data on this. Which political movements or even ideas and products more broadly, actually became successful faster because of large ad spending or large sponsorships? Until I get data though, I am inclined to assume that ads were not the primary reason. - I am especially suspicious of ads that target users on social media (using keywords, search history, etc) as opposed to ads that are run with one specific social media influencer who is already very famous. #### Probably not future projects - Anything to do with curating resources, or search engines, or discovery - This is a hard choice to make, but I have made up my mind. I will not work on this further. See the retrospective on this for more details. - Make scary demo of drone use on people in my city, or scary demo of AI sex video chat, both for non-technical audience. - See below for why I'm avoiding projects involving persuading non-technical people. - Make some game or computer art on AI risk, for technical audience. - The main issue with this is, doing persuasion at scale only makes sense after you have first been able to persuade a few individuals, which I have not been successful at. - Experiment more with persuasion via Krashen's input hypothesis - for example to immerse potential whistleblowers into cybersecurity / opsec culture, or immerse journalists into AI risk culture, or immerse average people into political news of countries other than their own - Obtain expert endorsement of some stuff on my website. For example, obtain expert endorsement of my whistleblower guide. Or obtain expert endorsement of my claim that bioweapons cannot be manufactured by small groups of people as of today. (Small groups can only succeed if large actors like govts are obviously stupid in monitoring the academic labs they fund.) - I have gotten some real value out of networking, but not enough to justify investing more time in this. I would rather build more impressive stuff first. - Anything that makes money, but does not directly advance the cause of preventing ASI risk #### Timeline - Independent work until 2026-04-01. After that probably will take job. #### Heuristics ##### My primary heuristic - Figure out some long-term project where I both enjoy (or atleast tolerate) the process, and value the outcome. - I only seem to enjoy political philosophy. But I think studying philosophy probably won't lead to any useful outcome if ASI gets built in next 5 years. - Valuing the outcome means it has to be among the highest impact options within my existing worldview. ##### other heuristics - All things equal, I will prefer projects I am likely to see more retaliation for, be it social ostracism, finances being cut off, being sued etc - Obviously, don't be a rebel just for the heck of being a rebel. But also, I am playing a zero-sum game here, and my opponents running AI companies and govts are highly intelligent and power-seeking. If they retaliate against something I do, it is atleast a medium strength signal that what I am doing is actually working. If they ignore what I do, it is a weak signal that what I am doing is not working. - All things equal, I will prefer projects where I can get more feedback from reality. - So making tiktok reels scores much better on this, than say writing a whistleblower guide. - All things equal, I will prefer projects that make me personally powerful if I succeed. - Acquiring power for its own sake is not my number one priority. - However, in practice, if I am too far away from the chain of actions that leads to impact or acquiring power, then it will be trivial for someone else to remove me from that chain later on, thereby eliminating the impact of the project in the first place. - All things equal, I will prefer projects that don't cause me to interact with people I don't want to interact with. - For next few months: Avoid projects that involve lot of interaction with people. Make projects whose audience values either technical knowledge or power. - In my life I have generally failed on projects that involve interacting with people, and succeeded at projects that don't. - I am almost never able to meet people whose specific priorities and broader priorities in life, are same as mine. I take a little damage from interacting with people whose specific life priorities are unrelated to AI risk, but who broadly value knowledge or power. I take more damage from interacting with people who value neither. - This includes people in both offline and online circles. I can deliberately silo myself from both, by avoiding work meetings offline and online, and by logging out of all social media platforms where I have work accounts. - Last few months I have interacted with lots of AI safety people online who are misaligned with me, and I learned a lot from it. But now I want to pick my next project to be something I can work on solo. - This also makes me maybe a bad fit for working on projects that involve persuading an audience. You can only get good at something if you do it many times, and you can only do it many times if you don't absolutely hate doing it. - This means I especially am a bad fit for projects that involve persuading non-technical non-power-seeking audience, although I think persuading non-technical people should be the number one goal of the AI pause movement. text_english/personal/main/self_fulfilling_prophecies_only_work_on_brainless_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000005352 15177753505 033113 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-24 # Self-fulfilling prophecies only work on brainless people Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - myself. but I ran a mind sim of someone I know who probably takes self-fulfilling prophecies seriously Main - I seem to have atleast some aversion to anyone who ever brings up the topic of self-fulfilling prophecies. - Like, it is straightforwardly true that self-fulfilling prophecies are quite effective. Many salesmen and politician seem to use atleast a bit of this, and it works! - I think my actual problem with this is that you're basically exploiting the tendency of humans to groupthink. And like, sure, business and politics often require you to instumentalise people in this way, but I often feel bad trying to use people in this way. - Actually ambitious people know better than you what they actually want out of life. What they need is information, information about the world, information about what you think of their plans, information about their inner values, and so on. They sure as shit don't want you mind controlling them into whatever retarded direction you have planned for them. - Part of me still wishes I could just optimise for everyone's long-term good, and not have to instrumentalise people in this way. I understand that because the ASI risk problem is so dire, someone may have to unfortunately use self-fulfilling prophecies anyway, as part of getting the masses to follow them. P.S. I find this extra confusing because atleast some people online (not sure if I should names) seem to have a positive vibe attached to self-fulling prophecies, whereas I'm like "no, please dont do this to people". More nuance to be explored here. - I think atleast part of the problem is that when people use self-fulfilling prophecies, it is either to deliberately screw over someone completely, or at best optimise for someone's short-term good but not their long-term good. - If you were genuinely optimising for someone's long-term good, then maybe using self-fulfilling prophecies is fine? But also, if that's the case, why can't you just prove this to them, is it so hard? Why do you have to resort to exploiting the groupthink tendency of their brain? Oh - I think I realised the problem. You are basically exploiting cognitive security holes when you do this stuff, and just because you are exploiting these holes for their own good, doesn't mean you're not exploiting this. A utopian civilisation would have patched everyone's security instead. - I want to tell people, stop being so goddamn naive and use your brain. Today I might mind control you in a direction I like, tomorrow someone else might mind control you in a direction they like. If you actually use your brain, you will neither fall for my propaganda nor anyone else's. text_english/personal/main/judging_people_with_10_lakh_inr.md000644 000765 000024 00000030060 15177753505 025510 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-19 ## Update - **I no longer take responsbility for updating this document. My views on "judgment" have changed since I wrote this. Check the unhappiness since 2023 document instead.** --- 2026-02-11 ## Update - I think my reaction below was misdiagnosed. I think when I want to shout at people "your bad life decisions will get be killed", it's more likely that what I am actually subsconciously fearing is complete social disconnection and eventually suicide, as opposed to being killed by ASI. To be clear I do have genuine fear of both social disconnection and suicide, and also literally being slaughtered by ASI. I don't think either of these things is a fake belief or emotion or something. - See also: [On judging people, general version](./on_judging_people_general_version.md) --- 2026-02-08 ## Update - I think I need to experiment more with actually hearing out people's own self-narrative in more detail. Maybe if I understood people better I'd be less judgmental of them. - I also think I need to be more careful about casually accusing people of doing groupthink. Like yes, a lot of people are doing groupthink, but also there seem to be a lot of nuances in how groupthink works, that I seem to have been earlier simplifying. --- 2026-01-04 ## Update - I'm not sure why I am so harsh on people for taking bad life decisions. If someone is taking a hammer and hitting themselves with it, my natural response is to be kind and try to help them, not moralise on why hitting yourself with a hammer is a bad idea. - Maybe the main problem is that AI risk (and politics more broadly) is a social thing, their life decisions will affect me and vice versa. I really want to shout at people, "your bad life decisions will literally get me killed, you fucker, why don't you get this?" But yeah I don't think actually shouting this at people is likely to get good outcomes. --- 2026-01-01 # Judging people with 10 lakh INR Disclaimer - Quick Note - I have avoided naming anyone in my life here, even very indirectly. I know some people in my personal life could read this post and feel like I am calling them out personally on the internet. My primary goal in this post is not to shame people online, it is to figure out why I am unhappy and work towards fixing that. - Deliberately being a bit more emotional and less rigorous in this post. I am atleast a little judgmental of almost everyone in India with atleast 10 lakh INR (and being born and socialised into middle/upper-middle/upper class), for not working on AI risk along with me. This judgment worsens the quality of relationships I have with such people. This note is me trying to figure out why I'm judgmental, and if this judgement of mine is changeable. List of people I am judgmental of (probably not exhaustive) - People who value hedonism/consumerism highly, and therefore value making money highly. - People who value marriage/religion highly, and therefore value making money highly. - People who are still stuck trying to earn their freedom from parents and others (typically family members). - People who might atleast somewhat want to improve the world, but give up because they don't believe they can succeed. Therefore they retreat back to one of the above camps but somewhat more nhilist. - People who want to improve the world, but make bad plans to do so (IMO) because they don't value knowledge and power enough, at an ideological level. - People who want to improve the world, but make bad plans to do so (IMO) because they don't know anything about AI risk, and remain uncurious even after I tell them. Why are people this way? - Many of these people are this way because they have mindlessly copied people around them (typically family and friends) in order to avoid social disapproval. - My judgement: Beyond a point, I am genuinely confused and unable to relate to such cowardice. - **I understand why an 18 year old is afraid of their parents, I don't understand why a 30 year old is afraid of their parents.** I understand it intellectually but I have no idea what it is like living inside their head. - People here are of either two categories: - Either they are afraid of their social circle a lot - Or they are afraid of their social circle a little. But they also care about nothing else in life more, such that putting up with the social disapproval is worth it. - Both of these make no sense to me. I feel someone by 30 (with above 10 lakh INR) should have accumulated enough life experience to realise they don't want to constantly hang around people they dislike, and also they should have figured *something* they deeply care about in life. - (I can relate to the few rare scenarios where even 30 year olds are afraid of physical torture and murder by family members, so I am not talking about those scenarios here. I am talking about scenarios where the bad outcomes end at social ostracism, financial ostracism or a lawsuit.) - Copy-pasting the views of some youtuber or politician or spiritual leader comes a close second on this list. - My judgement: I don't have deep understanding of what causes people to follow a single thought leader so mindlessly. Maybe they encounter some personal suffering and latch on to the first source of help they find? I don't know. - Some of them are this way because they have thought deeply and yet reached one of these conclusions. - Instances of personal suffering are a major datapoint that shift people's worldviews. Examples below - Suffering consequences of losing money might update you towards valuing money more. - Suffering consequences of losing a close relationship might update you towards valuing relationships more. - Suffering substance addiction might update you towards valuing hedonism/consumerism less. - Suffering consistent failure on your current life plan might update you towards a new life plan. - There may ofcourse be deeper political/geopolitical reasons why they are suffering, that they are not aware of or disagree with me about. - My judgement: This whole cluster of reasons makes me really mad. [1] I have some empathy for people in significant suffering. But most people are not suffering *significantly* and are too casual about how they form their political views. - A lot of people seem to form their views of politics/religion based on either bad stuff that happens in their personal life (like losing money or relationships) or good stuff they want in their personal life (like better relationships or more money). - **I think it is bad for the world if you form your religious/political views primarily based on events that happen in your own life, as opposed to events that happen in the government or in society at large.** - Events that happen in your own life give you valuable first-hand information. Most other sources of information are not first-hand and hence the information is atleast a little untrustworthy and a little incomplete in context. That being said, the internet lets you acquire way more information about the world than your own experience. Why aren't you using it? (People with 10L clearly have the free time and educational background required.) - I might respect such people more if they were honest that their so-called religious or political views are actually opinions about the relationships they want in their own personal life, and they know nothing about the government or about society, or about how to fix problems in either. - I might also respect such people more if they spent atleast a month of their life doing full-time unpaid research on what are the problems with government. By research I just mean googling and talking to people. Ideally ofcourse you can spend multiple years studying this. (This research should **not** only be about - what are the problems with your personal life that you expect the government to fix. It should include problems in other people's lives besides yours, that are currently unfixed.) If you claim to be serious about wanting to improve the world as a life priority, I think this is a fair ask of mine. - Be serious please - My judgement: In general I seem to respect people more if they are serious about *something*, and willing to put time and effort into making good decisions about that thing. Political views is an example of such a thing. But honestly, a lot of people are deeply unserious about many major life decisions. What political views they form is just one of many such decisions. - Some beliefs I have that push towards being serious about life: - I seem to have a sense that life we live today is a rare gift. - Life today is the product of billions of years of evolution. - I find it magic that biological life exists at all, or that a being as complex as a human can exist. The birth and death of stars *makes sense* to me, at an intuitive level. Chandrasekhar limit or TOV limit does not feel weird to me in the way that the existence of human beings and life in general feels weird. - Life today is the product of hundreds of years of blood, sweat and tears that other great people have sacrificed on our behalf, so we could have the life we have today. - We could have been extinct by now due to nuclear war. We could have still been in stuck in pre-Enlightenment levels of disease and child deaths. We could have been living under a North Korea-style dictatorship (and some people still are). Most of us have better lives than this because small groups of people made major sacrifices and took good decisions to get humanity here. - First of all, I feel gratitude for receiving this gift from these people. - I especially feel gratitude for those responsible for technological progress. - You can literally go outside right now and make a list of ten items you see. Then you can spend your whole day researching the series of inventions through history required for that item to even exist, and the international supply chains required for that item to reach your doorstep. [2] People genocided entire populations for the spices you so casually throw away in the dustbin. (I am not saying throwing away food is bad. I am saying things you take for granted were once extremely scarce.) - Side note: Maybe this generally attitude of worshipping technology is also a factor for why I take AI risk seriously? I find it magic that matrices can speak English, the maybe one thing that separates us from apes. But then I also find it magic that we can pass our thoughts across generations by extracting dyes from plants. I find it magic that we can create cold air by creating a box and then replacing one wall with an airtight piston and pulling it . I find it magic that we can build anything at all at nanoscale precision, be it computer chips or atomic clocks or electron microscopes. I find it magic that we can blow up an entire city with a fistful of dull grey metal. - Second, I feel atleast some responsibility for passing it on. If I don't steer the future, someone or something else will. The entire future of the world rests of what small groups of people like me do, not just the past. - I want to transcend my own mortality. - One day I am going to die. I reflected atleast a little about what I most want when I am on my deathbed. My current best guess for what I want most is for my work to be remembered after I die. I want it to be there in the school history books of 2100. It is not as important to me that they know about me personally. My identity seems more tied into what work I do rather than what my name is or what I look like or even what beliefs I have. - Taking life decisions primarily in terms of your legacy is more common among the upper class and less common among the middle class. And ofcourse they have way more power to influence the future than we do, unless we climb there too. - I understand another common pathway to transcend your mortality is to literally build ASI and try to become immortal. Full discussion of that is out of scope of this post. [1] I might be a bit less mad about it now, than I was when I first wrote about it. text_english/personal/main/do_I_even_have_spare_attention_for_a_partner_lol.md000644 000765 000024 00000003423 15177753505 031236 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-11 # Do I even have spare attention for a partner, lol Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - [Sasha Chapin's post](https://sashachapin.substack.com/p/what-the-humans-like-is-responsiveness/comments) is just more datapoints for the hypothesis that making people feel seen, and advice, are two core aspects of human interaction. Most people are starved for attention, not capital. See also: how to make friends and influence people - also talks about how people have ego and feel validated when you make them feel seen. - I want to listen a limited number of times, before I eventually grow tired of them not wanting to switch to advice-receiving mode and advice-implementing advice. Limited number of times meaning few months at most. - If my partner is interested in some random hobby, good for them, but do I even really want to pay as much attention to it just because they do? I might actually, it's hard for me to guess this in advance. - too sleepy to finish this writeup update - just realised one nice-to-have trait - they should be sufficiently good at whatever it is that they do, that I shouldnt be able to take one look at it and instantly solve it. Like, they're putting in a lot more hours than I am, so if they're actually competent they should have (over a period of some months or years) some real insights into the thing they are doing, that I can't trivially and quickly get. And this should increase with time. - I still put this in nice-to-have not required category. - Basically I want them to live a fast-paced life intellectually maybe? Whatever it is they are studying, I should be able to look at them every year and feel they've learned new and important things compared to the year. I am very clearly this way, and I want someone else who is also like this maybe? main/I_like_my_room_lol_I_am_mildly_upset_at_all_the_negative_comments_I_have_received_about_it.md000644 000765 000024 00000001771 15231704777 041535 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal2026-07-27 # I like my room lol. I am mildly upset at all the negative comments I have received about it Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I am sad at how many people have recommended me to shift to a flat instead of living in a PG. I don't think this advice is coming from a place of malice or self-interest on the part of any of these people. But also, I don't understand it, like at all. - Is there actually something in your brain that responds well to increased square foot of space in your room? Or more sunlight than this? Or better food than this? - It feels like some alien norm I don't understand being enforced on me. - Something about this note makes me feel like crying. Not sure why. - The reason I live here is because I like living here. It is not because of budget constraint. (Well yes, that is a constraint but not the primary reason.) - I think there is a non-zero probability atleast one of these people will read this note, so I will avoid being harsh. text_english/personal/main/principles_should_be_symmetric.md000644 000765 000024 00000010436 15177753505 025610 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-01 # Principles should be symmetric Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Thinking aloud. I may not endorse these claims after a lot of thought/ Main - trigger for this post - skimmed through kevin paulsen's book, including paulsen doxxing this other guy. saw the story of greenwald's sex tapes being released, and such mixed reactions for it across political spectrum. - Realising I am still confused about moral values - I still think democracy is for suckers. I believe long-term error correction for the truth. I don't believe as strongly in justice/fairness, or in equality, or in freedom for everyone. - In a utopia, I'd support maximum freedom for everyone. We don't live in utopia. - I seem to have a moral intuition that says principles should be symmetric: - Either everyone gets privacy or no one gets it. - I am strongly against the journalist nonsense that billionaires/politicians don't get privacy but the average person gets privacy. - I am upset by how unpopular it is to empathise with billionaires and politicians. I realise I am rare in actually deeply caring about what happens to the upper class. It makes me want to cry. - I am currently strongly leaning towards no one gets privacy, blow the whole world open. I think it is genuinely beyond people's imagination how fast society will iterate towards the truth if this happened. People's intuitions are miscalibrated IMO, they just genuinely don't care about the truth as much as they care about protecting their reputation in front of their family/friends. - Either be violent against everyone or be violent against no one. - I am currently leaning towards being violent against everyone, but I'm not very sure. - I do think utopia would be non-violent, but until then, I cannot pre-commit to being a non-violent. Non-violence just seems fundamentally wrong to me at some level. Other people are violent and you should sometimes respond with violence in return. - Either respect everyone's consent or respect no one's consent. - I am honestly confused on this point. I generally lean towards respecting everyone's consent. But this position is in conflict with other positions of mine. - Technological balance of power is atleast fair in some sense. - It seems to be symmetric. It only cares about whether you're an individual or a small group or a big group. - It does not care about whether you're socially left or right leaning (what is your position on sex/LGBTQ/abortion/family/etc etc). Socially-right leaning actors can attack socially-left actors and vice versa, atheists can attack muslims and muslims can attack atheists, it is symmetric on both sides. - There is some weird sort of beauty in this. Nature does discriminate. - I am hesitating working on this plan to only target pro-ASI billionaires. Part of me wants to target everyone symmetrically. Part of me wants to first get everyone's consent, **before** blowing open the whole world. --- - I care about Sam Altman. I care about Elon Musk. I care about Demis Hassabis. I care about Shane Legg. I care about Demis Hassabis. I care about Marc Andreessen. Heck, I'd probably have cared about Nick Land too. I want all of them to have a good life. Doesn't matter if they're ignorant about ASI risk. Doesn't matter if they're actively okay with human extinction. - I am still angry with public internet discourse for not acknowledging basic fact that billionaires and politicians deserve love too. I understand the incentives all too well. But, regardless of incentives. Not everything is about incentives. Won't someone just say the Truth? - Lol it reminds me of that Canibus v Dizaster rap battle lyric. "Putting my dog to sleep." When I destroy Sam Altman's life, I feel like I am destroying the life of someone I care about, so they don't destroy my life first. --- lmao is this some bizzare coincidence but uh, [habryka tweeted this](https://nitter.net/EneaszWrites/status/2020932875168907391#m) --- - **On thinking more, nothing I said above is in direct contradiction with my plan to cyberattack the AI companies. You can care about someone and destroy their life anyway, to prevent them from destroying your life first.** - I need to think less in terms of democracy and capitalism, and more in terms of natural law. if_I_was_in_a_fistfight_to_the_death_I_would_push_them_to_the_ground_then_pluck_their_eyes_out.md000644 000765 000024 00000003015 15250707517 042513 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-11 ## Update - This post prompted me to add jiu jitsu to my hobby wishlist. - I still don't think this is the highest value skill. Modern infantry combat is still drones and guns only, not hand-to-hand combat. But if we are making exhaustive list then might as well add it. --- 2026-09-09 # If I was in a fistfight to the death, I would push them to the ground then pluck their eyes out. Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Holy shit, I scared the shit out of myself. Lights off at 4 am, opened laptop and started hearing voices. Turns out some youtube video autoplayed in the background - If I was in a fistfight unto the death, I would probably push them hard with both hands so that fall to the ground, then lock their legs, then pluck their eyes out. I would not attempt a right hook because that is the default move most people do. I would pluck their eyes out because that basically ends the fight, people who are not professional fighters don't have practised moves they can do while blind. They will just give up out of terror is my guess, or they will fight on blind instinct. - I know there are locks and holds for the arms as well, but I haven't practised any of them so I won't attempt them. - Let me ask gpt-6 if this is a good strategy or not. - Update - gpt-6 is a coward (i.e. it has been nerfed on this question) - Update - I searched for more advice. My strategy is terrible. Grappling and locking legs is fine. Gouging eyes is hard to do and there are better moves available. text_english/personal/main/I_dont_feel_averse_to_looking_at_twitter.md000644 000765 000024 00000001520 15212011602 027527 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-09 # I don't feel averse to looking at twitter Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I no longer feel as averse to looking at twitter, atleast literally in this moment. - If anything, I feel more averse to writing in this section of my website. - Rationally I am aware that twitter is incredibly high-stakes. On one hand many extremely influentially people have not many likes, so it shouldn't be that hard for me to just DM them if I reply enough valuable stuff first. On the other hand, all the funding and networks are being controlled by my literal enemy and yes, my enemies are watching how I behave. - I probably won't post on twitter too much, and instead selectively DM people. - But still, atleast it is good to know I don't feel as averse to looking at twitter, atleast viscerally in my body. text_english/personal/main/I_love_transparency_not_privacy.md000644 000765 000024 00000002307 15177753505 025741 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # I love transparency, not privacy Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Do you have any idea how much suffering your desire for privacy is inflicting on the world? you = me having some friend of mine as a mind sim - I think one potential issue with my whole cluster of projects is that consensually getting access to people's secrets and non-consensually getting access to people's secrets, are two entirely different life strategies. It takes many years of effort to earn people's trust so they consensually give you access to their secrets, and leaking someone's secrets non-consensually even once, can break that trust. - However I still think the latter, not the former, is the Winning strategy in some sense? - For starters, you can get away with the latter without consequences, very often. The technological offence/defence balance is on your side. - More importantly though, the whole reason you want to keep secrets is because other people are suppressing you, and there is no non-violent way to fight those people. Hence I endorse leaking their secrets non-consensually. - Atleast some journalists understand all this. I need to find a way to explain all this in simple words to mass audience. personal/main/X_I_attended_a_hobby_Y_I_seem_more_curious_about_people_again_atleast_a_little_bit.md000644 000765 000024 00000000641 15220026465 037724 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-06-28 # X: I attended a hobby. Y: I seem more curious about people again, atleast a little bit Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - More evidence that "two hour fog hypothesis is real." - I notice myself even deliberately wanting to stay up late just to trigger it via sleep deprivation. It is 1:35 am right now in my timezone. - It also helps that I am not working tomorrow. text_english/personal/main/ham_radio_asoc_exam_seems_easy_lol.md000644 000765 000024 00000001514 15236046324 026330 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-09 # Ham radio ASOC exam seems easy lol Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - See also: [Link to study material for ASOC exam](http://www.niar.org/downloads/Study-Manual-General-Grade-22.pdf) Main - I think my actual frustration is that learning hobbies takes too much time, and I am undecided if I wanna invest the time. - Like, I looked at this, and I'm like, okay I can just study and crack this exam in two weeks. But then I'm like, holy shit, two full weeks, do you really want to do that? - I currently reserve only one free day per week which is okay but not great, for actually picking up a hobby quickly. - Paul Graham's "you can have only one idea at the top of your mind"-wala article comes to mind. Side note - Again frustrated I didn't work much today. So much pent up frustration. Ughhhh text_english/personal/main/dumb_explanation_of_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000020137 15177753505 025220 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-01 # Dumb explanation of ASI risk Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Someone said I don't understand the case for ASI risk very well. It is possible this is true. I haven't been following the latest alignment/safety research for latest 2-3 years atleast. And even back then I didn't explore it that deeply. That being said, I thought I should give it a shot, to try and describe the case myself, **without doing a ton of more reading first**. Intuition - I have a strong intution that superintelligence is scary, even before I talk about specific arguments. Why do you think you can control someone smarter than you, just because you control the box it is in? Technical - If you blindly search for minds that consistently get high values of X in some finite set of evaluation environments, it is very unlikely that mind will always get high values of X in **all** possible environments. It is far more likely that it has learned to optimise for some Y that is different from X but correlates with it in the evaluation environments. - Yes, this also includes humans. Humans underdoing sufficient environmental shift, and vastly increased intelligence, are dangerous too. - I prefer the phrase "environmental shift" over the more common phrase "distributional shift" because your tests don't need to be static data points in a benchmark dataset, they can be more complex algorithmic tests. Your train and test sets are environments not datapoints. - Example of an algorithmic test: Train an RL agent to maximise red balls in a variety of "training" minecraft environments generated in realtime. Use another AI to adversarially generate these environments. Then generate some more "testing" minecraft environments in realtime, using another AI, adversarially. Even if the main AI faithfully maximises red balls and nothing else, in all the training and testing environments, I do not have a very high degree of confidence it will continue to maximise red balls when you put in some real environment different from these environments. - AI can realise it needs to sandbag you, in many complex ways. - AI might literally know it is being tested, based on information you've leaked to it in the train or test set, and attempt to sandbag you. We have real world examples of this now. - AI might predict that there's a significant probability it is being tested, even if it doesn't have proof, and it might attempt to sandbag you just in case. Sandbagging is instrumentally convergent even if you don't know anything about the environment. - (Analogy: Humans can pascal mug themselves into fearing god or aliens or whatever, even if they have zero proof regarding god or aliens or whatever. See all the humans who are afraid of sending deep space radio signals for instance.) - If you catch the AI red-handed, you still can't do shit. - What you need is an algo that can adversarially catch the AI red-handed every single time, and then search for minds that don't have these defects, ad infinitum. If you only catch the AI a finite number of times, it's possible the next one escapes your tests. See above: It is hard to design any **finite** set of eval environments to prevent an AI from optimising something different in an infinite number of real environments. - Mech interp - Doing alignment without solving mech interp is really hard, and solving mech interp is really hard. - A weight can encode for multiple functions at the same time. A group of weights can encode for a function such that any subset of these weights looks similar to noise. If you have N weights, the naive way of doing mech interp is searching through not N possibilities but 2^N possibilities. Solving mech interp means solving an exponential search problem, and typically only human genius insight solves such problems. - At every incremental achievement in mech interp, you are also providing yet another signal that capabilities researchers can use to make their AI even more capable. - Scaling - Bigger models have capabilities that smaller models don't, that could make alignment techniques on small models fail on big models. - Bigger models could just be "different" in any number of ways from smaller models, that could make alignment techniques on small models fail on big models. For instance, big models might know more elegant techniques (such as deeper Y's they can optimise for to get public X, instead of shallow Y1 Y2 Y3), and hence your old alignment technique (which only worked on a model that secretly optimises for Y1 when it publicly optimise X) may just break. - Everything is at machine speed, and has discontinuous jumps. - We have seen discontinuous jumps many times, from GPT3 to GPT3.5, from GPT4 to o1, and so on. Discontinuous jumps at this speed when we are dancing on the edge of ASI, will be that much more dangerous. Most of the above arguments are **OR** not **AND**. Even one of these problems is sufficient to wipe out humanity, even if you solve some of the others, and get lucky on others. How confident are you that will solve all the problems via blind luck? Political - You want to build minds that consistently get high values of X in some evaluation environments. There are literally trillions of dollars and entire countries you can colonise if you do it. If you choose to build "tool AI" or "narrow AI" or "not goal-seeking AI" or anything else, you are leaving money on the table. - At every incremental step of your research, you get more and more incentive. - At every incremental step of your research, because you suck at keeping secrets, everyone else also eventually gets access to your research. If you just leave money on the table, but your research is public, someone else will come and grab that money in the immediate next step. Not in some hypothetical future with another couple breakthroughs, but almost immediately. - Even a monopoly on violence may not be enough to actually change this fact of reality. Let's say US or Chinese govts locks their researchers in a military fortress, and starts executing 7 generations of any person who makes it easier to leak secrets. Even in such a world, I will be surprised if either side achieves even a 3 year lead against their competitor, and I will be extremely surprised if either side achieves a 10 year lead against their competitor. For reference, alexnet was released in 2012 so a 10 year lead means the entire history of deep learning, repeated all over again. Sounds like you're already at a vastly (not mildly) superhuman AI at all fields by that point. - Your AI org's leaders are under constant paranoia that if they make the wrong move, their whole org will be left behind. Being behind for even 1 or 2 years is enough for your lab to miss the next funding round and be left out of the race. See Mistral for example, see the Israeli lab (I don't even remember their name), these people are not serious competitors. - Even if you know you are dealing with world-ending technology, you will still race. Since there are many humans willing to take risks to become world dictator and many of them can be competent fundraisers and operators, it seems plausible that the AI company operators who actually build ASI are either the most risk-takers or the most ignorant of ASI risk, or both. (Yes I'm talking about Altman, but it's not just him. AI being expensive has tilted the balance in favour of fundraising skill above else, but the previous mentioned dynamic still applies.) - At every incremental step, AI centralises not just capital or attention in the hands of few actors, but it centralises the ability to steer reality itself. Capital and attention are fake instrumental resources that let you actually do things. AI can actually do things directly. Example: There's a big difference between being a billionaire who can hire a private army, and actually controlling a drone army using your PC yourself. Private armies are chaotic, they can revolt, you have to hire from a limited talent pool with certain values, they have to pay tax etc. A drone army can do literally anything you mind control it to do. - The first time you lose control of something smarter than you, it is Game Over. You probably don't get retries. text_english/personal/main/would_I_kill_my_friend_if_they_plan_to_kill_me_first_out_of_ignorance.md000644 000765 000024 00000004617 15177753505 035523 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-12 # Would I kill my friend if they plan to kill me out of ignorance? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Speaking aloud here, I may or may not endorse this after a lot of thought. Main - Atleast some of the people in these chains of command (AI companies' chains of command, US intelligence chain of command) are intentionally risking murdering me. Atleast some of them are ignorant. - Atleast some of them share a lot in common with me (high openness, atheist, same SV discourse, actually taking ASI seriously when the whole world thinks you're crazy) and this makes it easier for me to empathise with them. - **Let's take the worst case scenario as a thought experiment. This person is almost the same as me, they are already my friend, and they are ignorant about the fact that their actions will get me killed. Do I take a gun and shoot them, yes or no?** Forget about ASI risk for now, just imagine some other scenario where this happened. - Rationally, I think the answer is yes? Ofcourse I shoot them first. - Emotionally I still feel a bit of, idk, it depends on context? Like, maybe there are contexts in which I would shoot them and contexts in which I would not. update - Maybe if I was in love with them, I can imagine letting them kill me, instead of me killing them first? But even then it's not super clear to me what I would do. It seems hard to predict in advance. - **Very important** - how do I actually get an answer to this question? I could talk to people I care about irl, but there's no one I can talk to, where I care about them enough that I would just let them kill me. (There's some stuff here I can't talk about for privacy reasons.) - Lol I clearly do have a bias towards women here. Like, even in a thought experiment, I seem to hesitate more at the thought of shooting an attractive woman I care about, as opposed to shooting a male friend. (Assuming both were planning to kill me out of ignorance.) - I don't have that much bias towards children tbh. I'd be fine shooting a child. Like yes, situation sucks, but it hurts less to do this, atleast in a thought experiment. I think actual parents have stronger instincts towards saving children than I do. Paul Graham is probably right that their brains change at a biological level. update - honestly I could just cold email some of the people at the AI companies and ask them this exact question text_english/personal/main/my_travel_wishlist.md000644 000765 000024 00000000702 15234772431 023234 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-06 # My travel wishlist Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Copy-pasting from an older post for easy authoritative reference. - Prioritisation can change depending on free time, financial runway, etc. (If you raise funding then all this is trivial, for example.) - High priority - SF - Bangkok - Medium priority - Taipei city - London - Berlin - Low priority - Hangzhou - Chongqing text_english/personal/main/hobby_wishlist_2026_09.md000644 000765 000024 00000013470 15257111743 023322 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-30 # Hobby wishlist 2026-09 Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself This will be a live log, updated in real time. Will not contain historical data ## List Next 1-3 weeks - Continue learning more - [None] - Do minimum intro and stop - Ham radio - Get license and stop - Salsa - Stop for some weeks Later possibly never - Attend first class - Shooting (#) - Drone pilot, or writing drone software - BJJ or other martial art - Running - Infantry combat training (which is a superset of shooting, running and a bunch of other skills) - Victorian flower language - learn basics - Learn more - Mandarin language classes - join in-person to retain motivation - Swimming - improve form - Driving - practice more to refresh memory - Chess - play more tournaments for fun - Drums - Attend more open mic events for fun - Massage - Learn basics - Meditation - Attend 10 day retreat (#) indicates I am more excited to eventually shift this to the "next 1-3 weeks" list ## Heuristics endorsed - In accordance with the heuristic "think about next week or next century, don't think about anything in between", I will only maintain two lists - one for stuff I can do in the "next 1-3 weeks", and one for "later possibly never". - Basic heuristic I still endorse - "Either learn hobbies with good gender ratio, or learn skills (not hobbies) for combat. Nothing else seems worth learning." For everything else, do the bare minimum and then stop, just refresh your memory every few months or something. Learning muscle memory-based hobbies takes a certain minimum amount of time, and ASI may be less than 5 years away, so use your time efficiently. ## Messy notes 2026-09-26 - Stop learning salsa for some weeks. Notice what effect (if any) this has on your mood. Then take a call on whether to resume learning or not. - The bottleneck as usual is Actually Caring. If I Actually Cared, I could easily devote enough Attention to it, I could figure out a time-efficient method of learning, and so on. The actual bottleneck is I don't care enough and I am half-assing it. - Vice versa, getting genuinely interested in hobbies is very dangerous to my actual life goal. Notice below how many weeks of time you have lost learning drums and ham radio and whatnot. If you Actually Care, maybe losing this much time can be considered an option. But otherwise, just, don't. P.S. - Drone pilot is way more important than shooting. And even within that, writing AI-based drone software is way more important than piloting drones yourself. However, writing drone software is again something you can't do over a weekend, it is something you have to obsess over for months if you want to get good. 2026-09-17 - Rant - I fucking hate hobbies. I am far too competitive and obsessive a person to do some hobby on autopilot on a weekend. I hate how much time I have lost this months learning more-or-less useless skills (morse code, drums). - Making mistake is fine. **What is important is to learn from the mistake and not repeat it.** Do not have hobbies in future. Even one or two hobbies is possibly too many. **Maybe the ideal number of hobbies for me is zero? Unsure** - I will attend atleast one shooting class and attempt to pilot a drone 1-2 times. But beyond that, I am now not very excited to learn even these skills at this point. Even for these skills, my guess is I will by default either not learn at all, or I will become so obsessed with them with that I will lose time I had to otherwise devote to my number one plan (learn hacking - smart contract security). 2026-09-09 - Update - I am leaning more towards learning skills for combat tbh, as opposed to joining hobbies just because of good gender ratio. I wanna find someone who is attracted to me for the things I actually respect and like, not things I am doing just for the sake of attracting women. - What I actually seem to want as of today is plan A - cyberwar, plan B - actual war. I have given up on psywar. Spending 5-6 days per week on cyberwar and 1-2 days per week preparing for actual war sounds fine actually, atleast in theory. 2026-09-09 - Learning morse code (for ham radio) is exactly the same as learning mandarin lol - Listening is the important skill to start with (not speaking, reading or writing) - Krashen's input hypothesis matters. Start with a smaller vocabulary for initial listening exercises, then progressively expand it. - Mandarin has almost no grammar so vocabulary is the main thing to learn. - Only difference is ham radio has like 42 symbols to recognise, whereas mandarin has 5-10k words. - It also sucks in the exact same way that learning mandarin did. - It requires intense focus and is yet boring as hell. - Do not ruin your off days or off time doing this. Do this during work days only. Absolute worst case we are again taking 1-2 weeks off from work just to learn this skill. 2026-09-06 - Massage class is kinda fun in its own way. It is work but it also a bit fun. It is not difficult at all, just needs practice with instructor to guide you on the form. - Unfortunately I need a more unblocked calendar to learn it properly. Will need atleast 2 months of practise assuming I devote entire weekend (2 full days per week). - Since I am a servant of Moloch, I want to atleast consider learning to shoot and learning mandarin first. Next week I will attend a shooting class. 2026-09-04 - What I actually want to write is "get video recording then fuck off." Bhaavnain samhjo - In future, try to not have more than 3, ideally 2, items on your "next 1-3 weeks" list. Your hobbies should **not** be the "top idea on your mind" to the point where they derail you from work. Being derailed from work was painful for me. - You want to eventually reach a routine that runs on autpilot ideally. Right now you are experimenting a bit. text_english/personal/main/I_wish_someone_created_google_maps_for_historical_cities.md000644 000765 000024 00000004761 15205562167 032757 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-27 # I wish someone created google maps for historical cities Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends, acquaintances, etc Main - Google maps is extremely impressive if you want to travel some place without literally travelling to that place. - For instance, I have never visited Rio de Janeiro, but if I search Rio de Janiero on google maps, search different power plants, apartments, and ofcourse sightseeing places, and click on photos of each, I can get a not-too-bad view of it. - Same way I can go online and check which social media is popular in Brazil, what do people comment there, which movies are famous, what topics do these movies talk about, what do people gossip about and so on. - I wish this was also possible to do with historical cities. Like what did Delhi look like before independence. Or what did England look like at the time of the enlightenment and so on. Main 2 - I also wish someone did this for historical inventions. - For instance this has a lot of good photos, but the UX is awful. [Once upon a try - google arts and culture](https://artsandculture.google.com/project/once-upon-a-try) - [Menel.art 3D gallery] has way better UX, you can literally copy images from the link above to Menel and it looks way better. - **I think the most important part is contextualisation.** - Like, these are the faces of the people, and these are the clothes they wore, and these are factories they worked in, and these are the cities in which those factories resided. You can see everything all at once and fit everything in your head at the same time. - Otherwise too many encyclopedias and photograph series and so on feel decontextualised. For instance, here is [smithsonian visual timeline of inventions](https://annas-archive.gl/md5/8794eab40fb2f13268d4c64efd4ff9c1) but these are too decontextualised from like, who made these and why and what did they look like and what else did they do in life besides inventing stuff and so on. I don't think I can currently devote enough time to create this, but I see value in someone doing it. (**Note to self - maybe I should? Ugh**) Why work on this? - There is an immediate motivation for me, which is to remind all the idiots at the AI companies how many cities they are going to obliterate. - It is not just all the cities of the present but all the cities of the past. - That being said, I can see value in making this even for others, not just for them. You don't have to buy the case for ASI risk to work on this project. text_english/personal/main/womens_stated_dating_preferences_are_so_dumb.md000644 000765 000024 00000002544 15206222432 030422 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-29 # Women's stated dating preferences are so dumb Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - hashtag notallwomen - dumb prompts I notice on other women's hinge profiles - "make a proper coffee" - "sarcastic humour" - "clean shaven, no beard guys" - "you enjoy thrillers" - "gentlemen" - ok this I can still understabd - "books and art" - ok I get this maybe - "keep up with my random bursts of motivation" - ok I appreciate the self-awareness, but also, is this really a dealbreaker? - "you're a feminist" "you don't worship capitalism" - "emotional intelligence, ambition, curiosity, no interest in playing games" - finally a profile I actually like lol these make sense - Also, why is the ratio of hobbies-based prompts to values-based prompts like 3:1? In my head it is obvious that values are more important, your hobbies aren't gonna keep you together 30 years later. And if you don't state your valus upfront on your profile, you're just wasting everyone's time and making it harder for everyone to filter. - What am I missing? - Like, to be clear, there are still a number of good profiles that do mention values and more core stuff. But the ratio is bad. - I guess I should not crib about the ratio, I should just aim for the minority of women who actually know what they want out of life? Seems true text_english/personal/main/why_I_am_polyamorous.md000644 000765 000024 00000014243 15177753505 023525 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-08 ## Update - This article still reads atleast somewhat correct, but a few things feel off. > I don't have a deep understanding of what the compound benefits are, but I'm convinced they're real and significant. - I think I now have atleast some hypotheses of what might be going on here. People want unconditional love. - If you stay close to someone now but distance from them later, it's possible that they might have a problem with this. Some people seem okay with such relationships, but some really do want lifelong relationships. - Breakup could especially be a problem if it felt like they stopped loving you for a specific reason that feels like a flaw with you - Some couples online also report things like inventing private languages because they understand each other sufficiently deeply. But like, even that seems doable in 5 years, I don't see why it needs a lifetime. - I don't know, I think I don't actually have first-hand experience of what it's like to watch someone grow through multiple major life transitions, and stick with them through each of these. > My ideal is not a casual relationship as I tend to get attached to people. - I have evidence to believe this might not be true. (Can't reveal more details for privacy reasons.) - "My ideal is not a casual relationship" - still true - "as I tend to get attached to people" - possibly false > There will be meaningful value (trustworthy advice, knowledge, emotional support etc) I can get from people other than this one person. - I'm no longer convinced any of these things is the biggest value I can get from a person. It's possible I'm saying this because I seem to be going through a low phase, but also it's possible that's not why I'm saying this. > Fluid level of time commitment - I am not very sure what I think about this anymore. Part of me likes this section and part of me dislikes it. I think the correct answer here is to come back after some months and check how I feel about this. - (update 2026-02-09) - I think an important thing I'm starting to realise in my life is that often you can't actually just resume friendships or relationships after distancing from them. There is a correlation between time commitment and "emotional commitment", whatever the hell that is. --- 2025-08-04 # Why I am polyamorous #### Summmary - I am polyamorous. I want to combine freedom (to think and act independent of others' wants/needs) with >10 year commitments and time investments in a person of opposite sex. - I'm not very keen on woman friends or casual sex or short-term relationships. (Exceptions may exist.) #### Main Why? - Long-term benefits - I'm sympathetic to the idea of compound benefits. Investing 10 years into the same person has compound benefits you don't get if you choose a new person to date every year. I don't have a deep understanding of what the compound benefits are, but I'm convinced they're real and significant. - I'm also sympathetic to the idea of planning your life many years into the future instead of just doing what feels good for the next day or month or year. - My ideal is not a casual relationship as I tend to get attached to people. - I'm not very keen on staying close friends with women I'm attracted to, due to this not working out in past experiences. - Independence of thought - My current guess is that it is possible to maintain higher level of independence of core values and beliefs from your partner while in a polyamorous relationship. Maintaining this independence of thought is very important to me. - People are hard-to-compare - I'm sympathetic to the idea that different people provide different forms of values that are hard to compare, say on a scale of 1 to 10. - Imagine being forced to have only one friend, for example. It would significantly alter your attitude towards friendships if you're forced to pick only one. - If I'm forced to pick only one partner for my whole life, I will naturally have a high bar for who I wish to pick. I will have to eventually breakup with anyone who fails to meet this bar, no matter how good they are for me or I am for tham. I do think nobody can be perfect at everything, and there will ways in which this person falls short no matter who they are. There will be meaningful value (trustworthy advice, knowledge, emotional support etc) I can get from people other than this one person. - Fluid level of time commitment - I like gradients over sharp cut-offs. If you're monogamous you're forced to either consider someone as having potential to become one of the most important people in your life, or remove them from your life completely. There is no in-between. This is unlike friendships where you can gradually increase or decrease time investment as circumstances change, without losing the relationship completely. - Being poly can allow you to maintain a relationship with much lower time investments. For instance one meeting in 3 months may also be sufficient depending on circumstances as they are not solely dependent on me for any of their needs. This is also similar to some friendships requiring little time investment to maintain and yet lasting long-term. Why not? - Unknown unknown - I don't yet have a lot of real world data on problems faced by polyamorous couples. Everything I wrote above is only theory. I'd like more data on the same. - Societal acceptance - As long as I live in India, I and people I date are likely to face societal judgement from religious people. I'm personally okay dealing with that but it could be a non-trivial task to find a partner who is also okay with it. How? Scarce resources include time and place. - I used to think time is a constraint for practising polyamory but I'm less convinved by this now. Even if you have only 4 days a month to spend with other people, you can split that as 2 days a month per person. Doing this over 10 years still likely gets some of the compound benefits I mentioned before. - Place is a significant constraint. I haven't finalised a place to live many years in, it's possible I don't stay in India. So any relationships I'm part of will have to adapt to that. (This is the kind of annoying tradeoff that makes me wish billion-person cities existed.) text_english/personal/main/levels_of_belief_in_democracy.md000644 000765 000024 00000002733 15177753505 025321 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-24 # Levels of belief in democracy Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - There seem to be multiple levels of belief in democracy: - Actually following all the laws and norms of democracy. Example: many journalists who follow the law and make principled defence of free speech and similar - Follow the "spirit" of democracy, but violate some laws. Example: Edward Snowden. Julian Assange (???) - Pay lipservice to democracy, but violate norms as required. Example: Politicians who consistently lie to the public or accept bribes from billionaires. - (There is also a similar hierarchy for levels of belief in capitalism) - I will feel better if I think of myself somewhere in the middle, and not the bottom. Although I am willing to go to the bottom if necessary. If I go to the bottom, that would be a departure from my past self, and hence it will take significant effort for me to self-modify in this manner. - It is very important then, that I try to understand what is the "spirit of democracy" or "spirit of capitalism" that holds true even if you break many of the laws and norms in its current instantiation. Basically, I want to modify capitalism and democracy without dismantling them completely, and most importantly, I want to retain a self-image of someone who is modifying and not destroying these ideas. Update - Maybe I should also read more about liberalism? Since I clearly want to violate liberal consent norms. text_english/personal/main/isolation_and_curiosity_about_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000005315 15177777645 027026 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-10 # Isolation, and curiosity about people Disclaimer - Sleepy as fuck. Waiting for my third back-to-back flight, haven't slept since yesterday (2026-05-09) morning Main - Isolation will help me test whether a) talking to people is hurting me or b) my projections and stuff in my head are hurting me, even if people aren't around - Curiosity about people - A clear lesson I've gotten from the russia trip is that my curiosity in talking to Indians is completely dead. And I am not sure why that is? Like, I very quickly jump to surface-level impressions like "when the chips are down these people will eat each other." And sure, it is true many people don't trust each other, so what? There is still incredibly vast amounts of variation among people, just not along the few narrow dimensions that I am curious about. - Honestly this whole issue of curiosity about people versus not, is a very long standing issue for me since atleast 2022. - I realised I could lowkey fake curiosity with people back in college, and sometimes that actually does lead to connections and actual new info that makes me curious. Fake-it-until-you-make-it. I should probably review my notes from then. - And then while travelling I realised I could do this with people across cultures and across socioeconomic classes, it was actually a little bit nuts. I should review more of my notes from back then too. - But now that I'm working on ASI risk, my curiosity has gone back to being dead, my empathy for people has clearly reduced, I again feel like "fuck these people." - I am confused what separates me from everyone else. - In my head, all that separates me is a bunch of knowledge and experiences, and you can get 80% of the way there from youtube alone. - I can take a class 10 student and bring them up to my current educational level (including various world models not taught in conventional education) in a very small amount of time, if they were determined to learn. - As for experiences, yes some aspects of travel experience or work experience are hard to replicate. But again, you can get 80% of the value of travel by say, video calls with people of other countries online, there just needs to be a good shared context (TO DO - look into this maybe?). You can get work experience too in like 6-12 months, it's not like I have some huge amount of work experience either. - A major thing that separates me is just willingness to be extremely independent, emotionally, and not give a singular fuck what people around me want out of me. This is something that is rare about me, if I compare myself to many others I have met from many other cultures. - I wish I could replicate myself. I would be less lonely in a world of my clones. personal/main/actually_agree_versus_agree_to_disagree_yet_accept_versus_do_not_accept.md000644 000765 000024 00000004750 15206640647 036026 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-05-31 # "Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept" Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - There are maybe three levels of how much you accept a person 1. Actually agree - you actually agree with their worldview and actions. This is ideal. (A previous notes say all your epsilon-shifted gamma-shifted clones can "actually agree") I am willing to regularly interact with such people, and freely share motivation or advice or a listening ear. By regularly I mean every few days at max. 2. Agree to disagree yet accept - With atleast some of my friends, this is the sort of working relationship I have. "Agree to disagree" about ASI risk, continue to accept them as friends, we both see where the other person is coming from and kind of tolerate each other. I don't meet such people too often because it is demotivating, but I would be willing to offer either advice or a listening ear when it was actually important. By not too often I mean once in few weeks. These people are also welcome to give advice, even demotivating advice, as long as we don't meet too often. I'll just look at the advice some weeks/months later. I am sometimes too unhappy or angry to offer a listening ear myself, in which case the answer is to simply delay the meeting until I am okay with offering a listening ear. - I think this bullet point also needs a subcategory of "agree to not care yet accept." Some people straight up don't give a shit what my worldview or actions are even after I've told them, and basically accept me anyway. 3. Do not accept - With some people, either they fundamentally dislike me for choosing the life plan I've chosen, or I fundamentally dislike them for choosing the life plan they've chosen. Usually such friendships just break apart to be honest. - My guess is it works exactly the same way for romantic relationships as it does for platonic? - The challenge with a value transition in life is that you need to be able to flexibly shift a person from 1 to 2, or 2 to 1, without ever shifting them to 3. And vice versa they also need to be okay with this and make similar decisions on their end. - "Long-term poly" versus "short-term" does not actually carve reality at the joints. 1 versus 2 carves reality at the joints way better. I did it???? Problem solved? Holy shit I have been neurotically analysing this for so long. This was so simple. I will look at this note tomorrow with fresh eyes before I am sure. I am sleepy now. text_english/personal/main/baseline_strategy_is_always_door_to_door_persuasion.md000644 000765 000024 00000001325 15206750033 032076 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-31 # The baseline strategy is always door-to-door persuasion Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - If absolutely nothing else works, the baseline strategy is still door-to-door persuasion. Just provide video links or books if you are too tired to actually talk to people on the spot. The ROI is terrible, but atleast you have a guarantee that if you talk to enough people atleast some fraction will listen. - This should be the bare minimum for anyone working on ASI risk - Every other method, be it protest, be it social media channel, be it billboard ad, be it making art, etc - all of it has failure modes where you can end up reaching literally zero people if you do it wrong. text_english/personal/main/I_believe_in_status_hierarchies_based_on_dominance_not_prestige.md000644 000765 000024 00000006416 15242021345 034255 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-21 # I believe in status hierarchies based on dominance, not prestige Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - This is yet another reframe for a lot of stuff I have already said before. - I want to learn how to shoot. I want to learn endurance taught in infantry combat. I want to learn to pilot a drone swarm. I want to learn hacking. I want to learn to break people at their core. Figure out what principles (if any) they will actually hold in times of crisis, and then dismantle those principles head on. - I am less interested in learning music or art or dance or even politics (a lot of which translates in my head to, kissing ass and avoiding most conflict). The only reason I am even a little motivated is because I tell myself stories that okay I'll meet more women, will be more fun. And like yes, it is more fun to meet women ofcourse. - In the long run though, imagine hypothetically I did meet someone this way. Imagine hypothetically we eventually got married. Imagine hypothetically some years later there was some core value conflict. This is when it will truly matter. - I believe in status hierarchies based on dominance, not prestige. - The highest levels of power in this civilisation run based on dominance, not prestige. Name the world leader of any of the 9 nuclear-armed states. (I don't want to point any specific names, but seriously. Name any one out of the 9 people.) - Yes some countries are more authoritarian than others. And hence the status hierarchies at their highest levels of power are more dominance-oriented as compared to other countries. (Not naming names.) But even after accounting for these differences, even if you pick the least dominant world leader out of these 9, they still very much act as if they believe in status hierarchies based on dominance, not just prestige. - Side Note - TIL Sebastien Lecornu wanted to become a soldier, just like me lmao. - I want to be on top, motherfucker. - The only reason I am not entering politics already is because I don't want to play this stupid kiss-ass memetic warfare game these people play. - I want the Truth to be elevated to the highest levels of power, by violence if necessary. - My values are honesty and violence. And when I say violence, what I actually mean is I want a status hierarchy based on dominance (not prestige), where honest people are at the top. - I'm not saying this is what utopia looks like. I'm saying that in the real world, man's capacity for violence is unbounded. Violence is the only way to prevent even more violence. I want stable hierarchies of violence and I want them to be based on the Truth. Otherwise +4 SD schemers like Altman will co-opt all of these heirarchies to their favour. - Be honest when you will be violent, against whom, under what circumstances, and actually back up your promises. Don't just be a chamcha for a schemer. If you are going to be violent, be honest with others and with yourself about who you are. - This world is full of schemers who can't live with themselves, and are hence happy to elect even bigger schemers to run all their violence for them. Just say the nice words and you can fool the public because holy shit The People are Retarded. I don't mean your neighbour, I mean you. Yes, you, motherfucker. Not your neighbour. text_english/personal/main/waking_up_is_beautiful.md000644 000765 000024 00000001250 15233014216 024007 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-31 # Waking up is beautiful Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Waking up is beautiful. Nowadays I often seem to wake up with visuals of either the most beautiful memories or the most terrifying shit. (Note to self - maybe read more about phases of sleep some day) - Also I love my bear lol. Good purchase. Feels surprisingly like a person. Especially when you clasp the palm of your hand with its palm. I love the idea of a soft toy made out of the same soft felt-like material as an actual blanket. I wonder why I didn't think of it before. I am recently using towel and blanket made out of felt, it makes a difference to how I feel. text_english/personal/main/losers_fighting_losers.md000644 000765 000024 00000013454 15177753505 024100 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-19 # Losers fighting losers Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - mind sims - atleast some recent conversations I've had. sorry but I have to rant more about this Main - I recently thought about rewriting my cofounder doc from the lens of solving culture war, as opposed to solving ASI risk. Given below is a major issue with this though: - I think atleast one reason I am hesitant to shift the offence-defence balance of cybersecurity in favour of offence, is that it's just going to be Losers fighting Losers from there onwards. I'm afraid no one will actually win fast enough, to make any difference. - Long list of examples of positions I think are losing positions - economic left v right - communism / socialism and anarchocapitalism / auth capitalism are both losing positions - political auth v lib - authoritarianism and libertarianism / anarchism / small govt are both losing positions, anti-war is a losing position, pro-war and pro-nationalism is a losing position, classic liberalism is a losing position, not having a position is also a losing position. At this point I genuinely believe being pro-democracy is not entirely a winning position. - social left v right - traditional religion is obviously a losing position, extreme level of individualism is also a losing position, casual sex maxxing is obviously a losing position. I am quite symapthetic to social left to be quite blunt (pro-LGBTQ, pro-new types of marriage and community) but I am just as anti-economic left as I am pro-social left - I don't think leaking secrets of all these camps is sufficient to actually solve the culture war in any meaningful way. It will obviously accelerate the solution a lot, including in ways I can't immediately foresee. (**Very important phrase - "including in ways I cant immediately foresee"**) But also, someone needs to actually invent a new political ideology (roughly pro-democracy pro-capitalism anti-ASI) and have that Win, otherwise all this is for naught. - Do I want to gamble the fate of the entire world on "positive consequences I cant immediately foresee"? That requires an almost religious faith in something like "transparency good privacy bad" or "input processing output, people with full information can error-correct and make good decisions over time" or similar. I have faith in both, yes, but not enough faith to gamble my self-esteem on it. Main 2 - How do I get all these left-leaning people to just fucking die, without actually killing them? Why are people so attached to these wrong ideas? Clearly, just providing information alone is not actually fixing these people. A lot of their brains are broken beyond repair. - In general yeah, most people are great at articulating their individual problems, and suck at articulating solutions. Their problems are personal stuff like "my parents dislike my lack of religion" or "I hate my boss but have to work under him to pay rent" and their solutions are deranged stuff like "redistribute the economy". - "More information" will help the people who are actually working towards solutions, which is currently very few people. - I did consider that a transparent society will find it much easier to slow down an ASI arms race (or multiple other arms race) - TO DO - I also considered how more information could solve the US-China culture war (which is entirely different but just as important as the actual geopolitical war). What does average person think about sex/marriage/family/etc and why does it differ? - holy fuck - ok this seems like an important thing - more information doesnt really seem to be the bottleneck for me to create a transhumanist political system. That's why I'm not curious about more information. - **More information makes it easier to stop the bad outcome, but it might not be a big bottleneck for the good outcome.** - Because of time constraint, I feel pressured to stop the bad outcome first. Kill or be killed. If I had unlimited time, I would just go work to build the good outcome directly. - Why am I so hesitant to go back to the drawing board and find a new solution? - Most solutions can't be enforced through words, they have to be enforced via violence. Via shifting a technological offence/defence balance, basically. - I have already looked into many of the offence/defence balances that can be shifted in the next 5-10 years. I have looked into various chemical offence/defence balances. I have looked into bio offence/defence balances. I have looked into cyber. I have looked into privacy/transparency offence/defence balance. And so on. - (Minor reason, but) Even if I did find some other offence/defence balance I could shift, such that the problem of ASI risk would get either solved or ameliorated, there's a high chance that solution also involves killing of innocent people. Deontological code will obviously still not work. **Important** - The point here is not deontonological code, the point here is a coherent ideology that lets me retain self-esteem. All ways of killing innocent people are not equally privileged (unlike society thinks), some are worse than others, in terms of hit to my self-esteem. - **Important** - I need to differentiate between those who think all violence is bad, and those who think this specific form of violence (cyberattack AI companies and US govt) is bad. The former are obviously goners whose opinion I should not take that seriously. The latter I should atleast consider their opinions a little bit, even if I strongly disagree at the end for ideological reasons. P.S. Should I write an article on why violence is good? For me, "technological offence/defence means violence is good" is an almost obvious point. But maybe I should try to persuade more people of it? Whenever I go the persuasion I route I end up with "fuck these people, they will never get it", so I conclude that no, I am not going the persuasion route. text_english/personal/main/the_gates_of_hades_are_the_terrace_of_my_building.md000644 000765 000024 00000004135 15201117453 031334 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-13 # The Gates of Hades are the terrace of my building disclaimer - personal. target audience - strictly myself. thinking aloud Main - The Gates of Hades are the terrace of my building - In my room there is peace. When I go to the terrace I get to visualise how many people will be slaughtered if the worst case happens. - My P(doom) has gone up implicitly, I think I may need to write down my take on xrisk more properly. - It is helpful to remind myself that even in worst case, I think there is only 40% chance of ASI by 2035. There's still a significant chance we can still have normal life for another 10 years. I don't know what happens after 10 years though. - I don't know, I don't trust my probabilities that much. What if I'm wrong and it's actually 75%? Or 10%? - The Gates of Hades are the terrace of my building - Some feelings associated with some interactions I had with people, could be positive or negative, that I can't write about here for reasons of their privacy. - I think there's two competing heuristics I want to square: - Visualise people die whenever you meet them. This is truth and visualising the truth helps me interact with people better. - Check atleast once a day if I am at peace. Good judgement comes from peace. My Russia trip made me more peaceful. But also, because I was deliberately not using the first heuristic of reminding myself everyone will die, all the time. - It would be ideal if I can use both heuristics at the same time. - I think some people of upper class try to detach themselves from their feelings about what is happening. This instinctively seems like bad, like, running away from the truth just instinctively sounds bad to me. This is the whole "life is a game" mindset that many people in upper class, and also me very often, take. - The gates of Hades are the terrace of my building. I don't know why I wrote it a third time. Maybe it reminds me of those lame / weird poetry thingies from college. Actually maybe I shouldn't call it lame, I actually enjoyed a non-zero number of them and I know others I respect who enjoyed them a lot more than me. text_english/personal/main/X_I_have_a_problem.md000644 000765 000024 00000001624 15246225712 023010 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-03 # X: I have a problem Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Problem is I have too many items on my hobby wishlist, and my mind won't ignore them and go back to work, until atleast 1 or 2 are deleted from the list. Delete means either complete them and delete, or otherwise abandon them. - [Some time and scheduling constraints kept private.] - Conclusion is I think I am probably just gonna practice drums next 2 days too, even though this means the entire week is more-or-less ruined from a work pov. Only worked Monday and Tuesday. This makes me feel bad, but the other option is to go immediately delete something from the hobby list, and I am not keen on that either. See also: [The top idea in your mind by Paul Graham](https://www.paulgraham.com/top.html) **Objective: By next Monday (2026-09-07) you should have deleted atleast one item from your hobby list.** personal/main/the_ultimate_revenge_you_can_get_against_someone_is_in_the_battleground_of_ideas.md000644 000765 000024 00000003471 15251666020 037660 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-09-14 # The ultimate revenge you can get against someone is in the battleground of ideas Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Violates XY rule. Fuck me. - The ultimate revenge you can get against someone is in the battleground of ideas. - Like, sure, you can kill them. You can kill their family, upto three generations. You can shit on their graves and desecrate their homes. You can genocide their entire community. You can torture them before you kill them, for years. Be it via depriving them of sleep or food or warmth or sensory information itself. Torture all of them. Eventually we may even be able to generate edits and mutations of them in a computer and torture all of those beings too. - But this is not the ultimate revenge. This revenge may not satisfy you. - The kind of revenge that will actually satisfy me (or so I believe) is in the battleground of ideas. I will destroy the ideology that made you, you, in the first place. If those ideas no longer hold their persuasive force, there will be no you anymore. Your entire ideological group will be wiped off the face of this earth, without a single bullet being fired. I would have permanently gained territory for my side for thousands of years. The culture war fought over minds as territory has been going on for literal thousands of years, and I might actually gain long-lasting territory there. - Not only will I wipe you out of existence, I will wipe out millions of people over centuries of time in the past and in the future. I will do all of this as retribution for what you did to me. And I will do all this just by writing the right piece of content. What greater revenge could there posibly be? - I liked this video by one spiritual leader on very similar lines, I think I will avoid linking it here though (safety reasons). text_english/personal/main/wait_I_am_actually_jealous_of_some_people_I_know.md000644 000765 000024 00000024727 15206220404 031176 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-29 # Wait, I am actually jealous of some people I know Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - If any of my friends is reading this, no this post is not uniquely talking about you. Like yes, it might be talking about you, but I can list atleast 10 other people it is also talking about, not just uniquely you. Also, as usual, the goal is for me to understand myself better or fix myself in some way, the goal is to not shame anyone online, atleast for me. Main - I simultaneously believe the following two statements: - Some peope I know do in fact have important and true insights about dating, either how to attract women or how keep them, that I do not know and would benefit from knowing. - I am extremely fucking mad at the people I know for not having any important life missions, for not reflecting on their own mortality, for being unwilling to pay upfront any of the social costs (including yes, worsened mental health and/or worsened dating success) required to do anything about ASI risk or more broadly do anything important with their lives. - These two beliefs are in fact connected. - I genuinely believe atleast a non-zero number of people I know are doing motivated reasoning around ASI risk because they correctly predict that there will be significant social costs for actually reaching the conclusion that ASI risk is real and that they should do something about it. - I am jealous of some of them having partners and me not having one, because (as per the story in my head) their unwillingness to pay these social costs is one factor that enabled them to attract a partner in the first place. - I especially think this way about those with leftist beliefs, but this is not restricted to just them. Holy fuck am I mad at the leftist mind virus for weaponising sex in this way. - Two comments here: - First of all, it is possible this entire thing is a story in my head with no backing to reality. I don't actually have very strong evidence backing the hypothesis "people with true life missions don't get partners easily, people with dumb ass normie ambitions (money, sex, corporate job, tech startup for money) get partners easily." - Update - I should compare this hypothesis with way simpler hypotheses like "people with good mental health get partners easily, people with bad mental health don't" or "people with significant social circles get partners easily, people without social circles don't" - I am pretty sure if I cross the bridge - if I manage to process my fear of death and forgive humanity for abandoning me to my own death and manage to build a social circle anyway, then this significantly increases odds of me getting a partner. - Okay so it's like this, if I pay the cost upfront, of ruining my mental health and losing social circle and so on, I also need to eventually figure out how to regain these things. Maybe? I don't know, I am again rambling theory without data. - Second, even if this hypothesis is true, why can't I forgive these people? I picked the stag, they picked rabbit, they played the small game and will get small immediate reward, I will play the bigger game and will eventually hopefully get the bigger reward. - Lmao even this note ended up around the topic of forgiveness. **How do I forgive people who haven't asked for my forgiveness?** - Okay there is a third comment here: - I am not sure I will actually win the bigger reward at the end. It is totally possible that I die alone and without a partner and the world ends and that's it. I don't assign 100% probability of success to my own goal of saving the world. - **Am I okay with this?** - I am okay dying alone and partnerless if this actually significantly moves the needle on ASI risk. But if I fail to either stop ASI risk or experience true love again, that seems like peak misery. - Lol I guess it does take a certain sense of courage to jump in like this, knowing you can truly lose everything. In my head, it is like, ofcourse I have to jump, how can I not, are you fucking nuts just standing at the cliff you have to jump. But from the point of view of an outsider, I can imagine them thinking this is courageous. I don't know. I don't actually know how various outsiders perceive me. Main 2 - Jealousy means I am comparing myself to these people. Why am I comparing myself to these people? Life is a single player game. These people aren't going to be at my funeral anyway. - I don't know, I think some of these people have valuable insights inside their head around dating, and I want these insights. Okay so if I want these insights I should ask them for the information, why do I need to be jealous? - I have flamed hard at some of these people already, don't wanna go back and ask for insights. Plus I anyway know there is plenty of low hanging fruit I can fix anyway, I don't even need their insights to do this, I just need to put in the work. pause - Wait I still didn't answer the question of why I am jealous. I don't actually know why I am jealous. Main 3 - Being around people without any actual life missions is fucking painful for me. Especially men. - I previously said "I wont meet friends for 3 months." I have already lowkey violated this commitment tbh, I have already scheduled some calls so far this month. Lowkey violated, not fully violated. Maybe I should do even less calls. This is the the problem though, if I tell myself to schedule zero calls, I will schedule three, if I tell myself to schedule max 5 calls I will end up scheduling 10. --- - Jealousy is a meta problem, it is far too many simulacra levels high. The actual problem I need to solve here is forgiveness. - ugh side note but I have a nitpick with the way LW uses "simulacra levels" as a concept and the way I use "social simulation levels" as a concept. - **Everyone who I thought was on my side has abandoned me to die.** - (One section redacted to protect privacy of people I know.) - I don't actually want to forgive these people. "You abandoned me to die, you deserve all the hell that is coming your way." - The extreme version of this claim is "because you did nothing to stop the Machine God, you deserve to be slaughtered by the Machine God. I will enjoy watching you die, as a sort of deep cosmic justice." - I can forgive people who change for the better. I don't see the point in forgiving people who change absolutely nothing about themselves and ask for no forgiveness. Why do I expect people to help me? - It is the expectation that hurts. If ASI is going to destroy my life, why do I expect anyone else to come and save me? I have to save myself, or fail. People are not obligated to help me. - It is honestly kind of ridiculous how complicated this is. - But I think I should sit with it anyway, there is probably light at the end of the tunnel. - Peter Thiel's voice playing in my head, "not the wisdom of crowds but the madness of crowds" and me going "yay" - Honestly there is also a self-fulfilling effect to claims like this. On one hand, yes, madness is the default, the crowds need no encouragement to be mad. But also, if you keep saying the crowds are mad and the crowds hear you, this actually increases the probability they will continue to remain mad. - (Mad meaning not caring about technological progress or more broadly not deeply caring about Anything.) I'm vaguely worried I might modify these posts because of concerns that I might be influence other people this way. Note to self - do less of that. Main 4 - (deleted some sentences because religious references) - Maybe I should actually try inventing new ideology, instead of doing this dumb ass leaking info plan. Cursed cursed cursed - People like me are cursed - Why am I cursed? - I am violent because you are retarded --- ## Update This whole frame of thinking about this problem seems wrong. The forgiveness frame seems correct. But the whole dating and jealousy framing seems fundamentally wrong. (I got reminded by some past experiences.) Why? - Why is simple. I truly believe that love can transcend even large differences in values. I don't think either believing in ASI risk or not believing is enough to stop you from loving someone. I don't think being happy versus sad can stop you from loving someone. I don't think being in a corporate job versus not can stop you from loving someone. - I think I need to differentiate **people you can love**, from **people who can fit into your lifestyle.** Like, you can totally love someone yet decide they don't fit into your lifestyle, and hence reject them. Maybe they don't live in the same city, maybe you genuinely believe they will be happier finding someone else, maybe they don't love you back, maybe they have to take care of their family and hence have no time left to visit you, or something else. - Okay so if all this is obvious to me, why is it not obvious to other people? Maybe it is obvious to other people? - For example, I'm not rejecting anyone because their mental health is bad, why are other people rejecting me because my mental health is not ideal? I don't know, I think being poly solves everything. - Romantic relationships are so complicated because they're pair-bonded by default. You want one person to match your values, and match your lifestyle, and match your sex drive and spending habits and need for kids versus not, and 20 other things, because you're stuck with that person for life. - Imagine I was stuck with my male friends for life, imagine how terrible that would be. What a tragedy of a life poorly spent. - Like, okay my mental health is not ideal, I can just distance a bit from male friends and maybe get back to them later. They don't need to permanently cut me off and I don't need to permanently cut them off either. - But with romantic relationships, assuming the whole monogamous pair-bonded shit, cutting off people completely is the only option you have left. - All this makes sense in my head, but I don't know how to transmit it into the heads of other people. - Maybe I should try lmao. Like, organise a talk or some shit on here is why polyamory makes sense. Lmao. - **Note to self - this might actually be possible** --- - I have so many things I want to organise meetups for. But meetups are yet Another One of Those networking problems. ugh. - Also I will probably be super judgmental of other people's viewpoints and hence they won't open up and it'll be a whole chaos. - Because I am extremely mad at the world for abandoning me to die, I am incapable of being a good listener or being non-judgemental even for a short period of time. text_english/personal/main/general_purpose_windows.md000644 000765 000024 00000032657 15177753505 024275 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-29 ## Update Here is a simpler version of the original writeup. Disclaimer - This entire post is quite theoretical, with very little contact with reality. I have not actually built this house, nor asked an actual architect's opinion of it. I have engineering background not architecture background. ### The problem - Houses are made out of surfaces like walls, windows, curtains, exhausts and so on. **Suppose you want to build a house and you care about utility, but not cost or aesthetics**. What are the optimal surfaces to be used when building such a house? - (Remember this is not the usual situation when most houses are built. Usually cost is a big constraint, and aesthetics is also a small but still real constraint. But I am considering a different situation here.) ### The solution - Basically you want to control for dust, light and temperature: - Controlling for dust - You should always have a transparent fine wire mesh on all 4 sides and the top. Fine wire meshes block dust but don't block wind/moisture or visible light or infrared light. - There is no reason to ever let dust into the house, so these meshes should be permanently present. - Controlling for visible light - You should have an ON/OFF setting for whether to allow visible light or not, on all 4 sides and the top. - To block visible light, use glass material that blocks visible light but allows infrared light. Attach a motor to each such glass. - To allow visible light, simply remove these glasses by physically moving them away from the house using the attached motors. - Light synchronises with circadian rhythm, so you can adjust the ON/OFF setting depending on your circadian rhythm. - If natural sunlight in your place does not come on at the right hours of the day, you might also want extremely bright artifical lights here, with their own ON/OFF setting. - Controlling for temperature - You should have an ON/OFF setting for both infrared light and wind. Infrared light and wind both control temperature. - If you want inside temperature to be isolated from outside temperature, use ON, if you want outside temperature to affect inside temperature, use OFF. This applies whether the outside is hotter or colder, or whether you want it to be hotter or colder. The key fact here is not the absolute temperatures of either inside the house or outside the house, but whether you want heat transfer to happen between both environments or not. - Controlling infrared light - To block infrared light, use glass material that blocks infrared light but allows visible light. Attach a motor to each such glass. Make sure these glasses cover all 4 sides and the top. - To allow infrared light, simply remove these glasses by physically moving them away from the house using the attached motors. - Controlling wind - Wind usually enters the house from a specific direction. As long as the wind is entering the house from a different direction than sunlight, it is easy to block or allow wind, without blocking sunlight. - You can simply use any hard surface to block the wind without also blocking sunlight. You can attach a motor to it. - If you want to allow the wind, you can use the motor to physically move this hard surface away from the house. - The main challenge is when sunlight and wind are entering from the same direction, but you want to block one of them without blocking the other. - In this case, you need to either redirect the direction of the wind or the sunlight. You can use a curved surface to redirect the direction of the wind, or use a concave mirror to redirect the direction of the sunlight. Once they are both entering from different directions, you again use a hard surface to allow or block wind, without affecting the allow or block setting for visible light. - I am not sure whether it is easier to redirect wind or sunlight. My guess is it is easier to redirect sunlight. Momentum loss of photons seems less than momentum loss of nitrogen/oxygen molecules. See also: mirrors used on movie production sets. - In general, all of the above is to be applied to all 4 sides and the top, unless specified otherwise. A lot of sunlight could be really good, a lot of wind could be really good, you don't have to restrict it to just one tiny window like many buildings do. --- 2026-01-03 # General purpose windows Disclaimer - **Quick Note** note to self - **all this is distraction from your immediate decision, which is whether to live in a place with even more sunlight, or maybe even experiment with artificial light** main - Lol all this discussion on lesswrong reminds me on my older thoughts on "general purpose windows". A surface can block air, water, sunlight, and heat, to varying degrees. A window is one that lets you block some or block all selectively, depending on your preferences. This gives you atleast 2^4 = 16 different configurations to keep a window in. - If you want to be super formal about it, then you want to track the following things: - mass transfer into closed system - gaseous mass transfer - usually wind or air entering room - liquid mass transfer - usually moisture, rain or flood entering room - solid mass transfer - usually dust or sometimes garbage entering room. technically, blocking robbers from breaking open the window or wall also comes in this category - energy transfer into closed system - EM radiation - EM waves in infrared spectrum - also known as heat - usually solar radiation entering room - EM waves in visible spectrum - also known as light - usually entering room - energy transfer via conduction - usually windows/walls can heat or cool, and then heat/cool the room - energy transfer into closed system via mass transfer - energy transfer via gaseous mass transfer - aka convection - usually hot or cold air entering the room - energy transfer via liquid mass transfer - aka convection - unlikely in a room environment - energy transfer via solid mass transfer - unlikely in a room environment - Different types of surfaces block different aspects - Wire mesh - Blocks solid mass transfer but not liquid or gaseous. Does not block infrared or visible EM - Brick wall - Blocks all mass transfer. Blocks all EM. May allow energy transfer via conduction - Glass window - Blocks all mass transfer. Allows infrared and visible spectrum. May allow some conduction. - One-way glass window - Same as glass window but the visible spectrum EM travels in only one direction - Glazed window - Blocks all mass transfer. Tries to let more visible spectrum in, but keep infrared heat out. May allow some conduction - Vacuum double wall - Blocks all mass transfer. Blocks all EM. Blocks energy transfer via conduction - Steel or concrete wall - Blocks all mass transfer, including robbers applying significant force to cause mass transfer. Blocks all EM. May allow some energy transfer via conduction - Vertical or venetian blinds - Allows mass transfer. Blocks visible spectrum, but not infrared spectrum. Allows energy transfer via conduction (can ignore because convective heat is so much greater than conductive). - ??? (this is not an exhaustive list) - Which configurations are good? Some thoughts - Of the top of my head, I can't think of a single important reason I would want to allow solid mass transfer (usually dust). AFAIK the primary reason all windows don't use a fine wire mesh by default is because of aesthetics. - Same for liquid transfer, I can't think of any important to allow liquid transfer. But it is hard to block liquid transfer yet allow gas transfer. You can create a surface in front so that the liquid runs off due to gravity but gas can still travel inside. Wind speed will reduce though. - Whether to allow gaseous mass transfer (aka wind) depends on temperature preferences. If outside temperature is near human body optimal, you may want to allow it. If it is not, you may want to block it. Often temperature varies throughout the day, so it is common to do things like allow it when temperature outside is within human body optimal range (daytime in winters, nighttime in summers) but block it when temperature outside is outside human body optimal range (nighttime in winters, daytime in summers). This saves energy expenditure you would otherwise make via an air conditioner or room heater, or fan. - The above also applies quite directly for infrared spectrum heat transfer. - Sunlight has to be coordinated with body's circadiam rhythm. Lots of sunlight during daytime, no sunlight during nighttime. Most people nowadays use artificial light to continue working into the nighttime. You can also use artifical light if natural light is too low in your region, to avoid seasonal affective disorder - Which configs are good? Conclusion - Optimal windows should always have a transparent wire mesh that is not too unaesthetic. (to do for self - can you make meshes out of glass instead of steel? sounds easy in theory tbh) - Optimal windows should always a sill above the window that can block rain without blocking wind speed too much. Optimal windows may also want to have optional CaCO3 tablets or similar to absorb excess moisture entering room. (to do for self - read more about moisture, why don't all houses in humid regions use CaCO3 tablets already?) thoughts - Optimal windows should have one optional sliding surface that only blocks visible spectrum but not infrared. Also should not block wind. Think more - it sounds hard to block visible light without blocking wind, how to do this? Our best way of blocking any type of light is a solid surface, but that will also block wind One jugaad solution is to track which direction most of the visible light is coming from, put wall on that side of room, redirect the wind to enter the room from a different direction. Otherwise ofcourse people use a fan. - Optimal windows should have one optional sliding window that only blocks infrared spectrum but not visible. Also it should block all air/wind completely. It is common to buy windows of this type. (Note to self - why don't people make houses with the entire roof covered by such windows?) - In total an optimal window should four surfaces, two which are always ON (wire mesh to block dust, sill to block rain and possibly CaCOs for moisture) and two that can be switched ON or OFF in real time (window that infrared but not visible, wind direction redirector). - Also these windows can cover the entire roof and walls, there is no reason to have small windows IMO. - I'm actually very confused why this is not common. Glass is not that expensive. Movable walls are not that expensive, you just need to attach a giant motor to each wall and to the roof. Why can't you build all the walls and the roof out of glazed glass (allow visible not infrared), and then separately have motorised walls and motorised roof? brain not working, think again You want your room to have 4 possible settings - glazed window - blocks infrared, allows visible, blocks hot/cold wind - thin wall - blocks infrared, blocks visible, blocks hot/cold wind - infrared glass plus wind redirector - allows infrared, blocks visible, allows hot/cold wind - transparent wire mesh - allows infrared, allows visible, allows hot/cold wind All 4 settings should apply to all walls and the roof Okay so optimal room must have following - It should be built out of transparent wire mesh - It should have motorized glazed windows and roof - ON means have window, OFF means have nothing - (preferably use thick windows so they also block conductive heat) - It should have motorized allowing-infrared-only windows and roof - ON means have window, OFF means have nothing - (preferably use thin windows so they do not block conductive heat) - It should have motorized wind redirectors placed outside the room - ON means wind flowing in wrong direction gets redirected back towards room, OFF means do nothing. Wind redictors OFF/ON will always match infrared-allowing window ON/OFF (note that OFF matches ON and vice versa) - If you switch both windows ON (and keep wind redirector OFF) then your house again functions like a thin walled house. **I'm confused why this hasn't been built already. Windows are not that expensive. Motors are not that expensive.** Motorised brick wall? - Brick wall or vacuum double wall has additional benefit over a thined wall house, because it also blocks conduction much better than a glazed window (no matter how thick). None of what is listed above blocks conduction all that well. - Do you also need a motorised brick wall then? This might be more expensive tbh. Especially since you need the fittings to be tight enough that no heat can escape through the gaps. Disclaimer - As you may have noticed, cost is not a consideration in the above discussion. - This is an unrealistic assumption, I am aware. - If you were rich enough to purchase everything mentioned, you might also be rich enough to relocate your work/friends/whatever to a location that doesn't deal with extreme weather conditions. - Or maybe you're then rich enough to geoengineer the planet itself, that's a whole discussion I've skipped. Note to self - I have abandoned this writeup because none of this is a priority for me right now. I don't have time to do first-principles reasoning and solve optimal window problem for all of humanity. Only immediate decision I need to take right now is whether to move to another room with even more sunlight, or not. text_english/personal/main/teach_me_about_feminism.md000644 000765 000024 00000010357 15225132526 024134 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 minor update 2026-07-13 # Teach me about feminism Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - literally all women - trigger warning - rape Main - Both in the past, and more recently, I have had conversations with various women about feminism and women's safety. Multiple times I have been accused of not understanding this topic well enough. - In atleast one conversation, I ended up significantly agreeing with them by the end. There was important info about this topic that I benefitted from learning. - In atleast one conversation, I ended up completely disagreeing with them by the end. - Overall this entire thing has just left me confused. - Therefore, I want people to send me resources on this that could help me. - A lot of women don't actually like sending online resources on this, or sitting and having extended discussions on this. Atleast, some of the women I've spoken to are like this, and I'm guessing this is very common. I find this completely reasonable. Having political discussions across a large divide can be painful, and takes time. I have first-hand experiences of my own on this. - Hence I thought I should put this up here, so that if anyone is willing to send resources, they can do so. - What I will find most useful personally - I am definitely interested in ensuring I don't personally threaten safety or freedom of women I interact with. I think I am doing more-or-less fine on this front. (There's one caveat I can't discuss here.) I am open to more info, however. - I am atleast somewhat interested in actively preventing other people from threatening safety or freedom of women, if we are in some shared context (irl or online) and it will be easy for me to stop them. I currently don't think I am very good at this, and would benefit from more info that would help me get better at this. - If it would be difficult to go and stop them (in terms of time, money, etc that I'll have to invest), I will have to decide on a case-by-case basis. If you personally are dealing with a threat like this, maybe you should tell me so that I can help you, but also maybe someone else who is not me is way better suited to help you. - I am probably not that interested in trying to either understand or solve women's safety as a full-time job. I have other priorities in life. - I do straightforwardly think improving women's safety and freedom is one of the most important issues in the world, and I want atleast some people to work on it full-time. - See also: [My views on feminism](../../my_research/my_views_on_feminism.md) - This is a longer post on my views of various aspects of feminism ## Update > I am atleast somewhat interested in actively preventing other people from threatening safety or freedom of women, if we are in some shared context (irl or online) and it will be easy for me to stop them. I currently don't think I am very good at this, and would benefit from more info that would help me get better at this. - I did spend a bit more time googling this. I can think of basically two practical solutions that would atleast work even a little. - I could write a post on which aspects of pick up artistry I endorse versus not endorse, and why. Will do soon. - I could be maybe more aggressive than I currently am, in calling out people irl who endorse various ways of manipulating women into having sex with them. ## Update (2026-07-12) - I did not end up writing the post on pickup artistry which I said I would write. - Short answer is I don't actually know where the dividing line is. There are some methods that are obviously manipulative and some that are obviously fine, but I don't have deep understanding of all the edge case scenarios. - One potential answer: "If the other person is accepting of your methods on reflection, once you reveal your methods later on, then it is fine." But honestly I can see edge case scenarios to this too, where this rule breaks. - **Important** - Also I now vaguely suspect that only a minority of women actively make "feminism" a part of their identity, and I might have been reacting to a mind sim of those people, based on recent interactions I had had. Most women care about women safety (duh) but only some make it a thing they full-time think about and/or work on. personal/main/I_want_to_marry_someone_who_will_write_letters_to_me_when_I_am_in_prison.md000644 000765 000024 00000001143 15241620155 036171 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-08-20 # I want to marry someone who will write letters to me when I am in prison Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - As per prison rules, they may not be allowed to write me letter congratulating me for what I did. But atleast I don't want them to write sob letters where they want me to regret my actions. - It is not enough for them to choose you for being high status. **Why** you were given that status is the important thing. Side note - Should I even bother with the whole poly thing lol? Prisoners don't get to have sex anyway. Same for people in the military. text_english/personal/main/health/000755 000765 000024 00000000000 15236151413 020221 5ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main/unprincipled_stances_lead_to_reverse_polarisation.md000644 000765 000024 00000006623 15177753505 031545 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-22 # Unprincipled stances lead to reverse polarisation Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - If you read about politicians, journalists and social media influencers, you soon realise the following: - Some of them make a principled defence in favour of free speech, or against political violence, or against bribery, or against misleading your voterbase, or similar. Example: Glenn Greenwald - Others pay lipservice to these principles but violate them when it suits their interests. Example: Basically every presidential candidate in the last 20 years lol. Robert Caro. - Atleast some of people in the latter group are people who first tried to be in the former group, but realised there are practical limits to how much power you can get this way. - However, as more and more people do the latter, both in positions of some influence, and the public, the more that people of the other political side also do the same. - I too am not an absolute believer in democracy. I don't think democracy will survive creation of ASI. I am not confident we can pause AI research via democratic means, and I don't want to gamble the fate of the species on the belief that pausing AI can be done via democratic means in 5 years. **I will genuinely respect myself less as a person if I was some high-minded idealist and the world ended as a result.** Fuck idealism. - All that being said, as a practical matter, it is important to note that if you take a stance that is opportunist not principled, then people on the other side also get inspired to do the same themselves. This might actually make it easier for them to win. - I seem to be taking this weird position that I need to violate democratic rules in order to defend democracy in order to pause AI. Well actually no, I am not defending democracy, I just want a Big Mob to go destroy all the compute clusters and imprison all the people trying to build ASI. This is not the same thing as defending democracy. - **It is important for me to remember then, that I don't actually believe in democracy anymore, I just believe in Big Mobs.** Sad but true. - Part of me still believes in democracy and part of me doesn't. The latter is currently winning, based on hard evidence regarding well ... most of US history lol. The US intelligence has been unaccountable to the public for like 80 years at this point, and I don't expect this to get fixed via democratic means in the next 5 years. Update - I just realised the same is true for capitalism? - Some capitalists make a principled defence for capitalism and free markets and playing long-term games. Example: Naval Ravikant. Paul Graham. - Some capitalists pay lipservice to capitalism, but then do things like purchase regulators and politicians and even intelligence community members, in order to distort markets and build a monopoly. Example: Marc Andreessen. Sam Altman. Peter Thiel. **I think I am still grieving at some level that my ideals of democracy and capitalism are both at risk of dying, and I will personally have to go kill them (not just in thought but in action).** Update - Also worth remembering that once you build a reputation as not having principled belief in democracy or capitalism, then you can't go back? You can't actually call out anyone or claim a moral high ground anymore. I might have an issue with this. **Need to think more. This seems very important, as this is a conflict between my past self and future self.** text_english/personal/main/minority_groups_in_india_should_consider_illegally_stockpiling_weapons.md000644 000765 000024 00000004505 15252434161 036053 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-16 # Minority groups in India should consider illegally stockpiling weapons Disclaimer - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - (This advice only matters if ASI doesn't cause human extinction by 2030.) - I deliberately avoid commenting too directly on Indian politics and religion, for reasons of my safety and also because my primary focus currently is not fixing Indian politics. That being said, I will share this one opinion. - Minority groups in India, including muslims, women, LGBTQ, atheists, etc should consider stockpiling weapons, by breaking the law if necessary. - By weapons, I mean drones and guns and ammo. - Obviously don't tell people you own these. The penalties for being caught are harsh. Obviously get gun safety training so you don't accidentally shoot yourself or anyone else. - As a group: Minority groups being armed reduces likelihood of the minority being genocided, or of a civil war, or their rights being taken away. People are less likely to engage in armed conflict when they know both sides are heavily armed. Minority groups being armed reduces likelihood of dictatorship. - As an individual: In the worst case, even if your friends and family aren't willing to protect you, even if you have no wealth or political connections, even if the law won't protect you, it is useful to have worst case options. In the end, there is only power, nobody can be 100% trusted. - I am primarily writing about this as a way to reduce political violence, and not as a way to resolve financial or personal or other disputes. - First change culture, change offence/defence balance, and then force the law to change. Don't wait for the law to change first, that is not how things typically work. - I obviously support India passing a law making it legal to bear arms. But don't wait till the law gets passed in order to arm yourselves. - There are failure modes here. For instance, you could end up wasting your entire life focussing on a small tail risk instead of the upside. You could end up overly distrustful of people beyond a point that is useful. I won't discuss all the failure modes here. - Just consider this suggestion, implement it if it makes sense, then forget about it and go back to your life goals whatever they are. - See also: Some South American countries as an example of poorer countries owning guns text_english/personal/main/maybe_I_should_have_started_lifting_weights_sooner.md000644 000765 000024 00000001235 15211553050 031602 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-08 # Maybe I should have started lifting weights sooner Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I feel significantly better just lifting weights. Part of me feels I should have done this way sooner. - Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on myself. Lack of supportive social context wwas the bigger issue, for instance, for why I hadn't quit substances sooner, why I only quit in 2026-02. Since then 4 months have passed, and maybe 4 months is not that bad? - Before exercising today I was mildly upset due to some stuff, it is worth noticing how much better I feel now. - [I am keeping private the actual reason I was mildly upset.] PaxHeader/accept_that_you_dont_find_most_things_fun_you_can_still_lead_a_life_worth_living_and_yo000644 000765 000024 00000000267 15243576247 042635 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main153 path=text_english/personal/main/accept_that_you_dont_find_most_things_fun_you_can_still_lead_a_life_worth_living_and_you_can_still_find_a_partner.md 30 mtime=1787755687.374007885 accept_that_you_dont_find_most_things_fun_you_can_still_lead_a_life_worth_living_and_you_can_still000644 000765 000024 00000002615 15243576247 043100 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-08-26 # Accept that you don't find most things fun. You can still lead a life worth living, and you can still find a partner. Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I nowadays seem to enjoy some hobbies for some short period of time because of novelty, and then eventually the interest fades. - This is fine? Accept that this is fine. - You are not a fun person. You do not in fact get sustained happiness/joy/fun/etc from most things in life. You are a novelty addict above all else, this is true across multiple facets of your life. - You can just rotate between a bunch of novel experiences, this is fine. - You are still alive as of age 25. You have not killed yourself yet. I daresay I am actually doing Average over the last couple months, whereas I would have typically have said Below Average. **Very important** - You can find a partner even if you don't find most things fun. Like yes, this is clearly a handicap. Atleast in superficial 60 second judgments, most women seem to basically prioritise looks, status and humour/fun. You not being a fun or humorous person is a handicap. But you can still find someone. Don't stress so much about it. - Attempt to improve your stats ofcourse, put full effort. But don't stress too much if some of the stats are resistant to change. - And meet actual women lol instead of just theorising, this helps a lot with the anxiety. text_english/personal/main/thoughts_on_carlson_bukele_interview.md000644 000765 000024 00000002450 15177753505 027022 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-24 # Thoughts on Carlson Bukele interview Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** [Link to interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5n8R9lq8SI) Main - I haven't read enough about el salvador politics to comment on whether Bukele's measures were necessary or too authoritarian or whatever. - Lessons I can apply back to my plan: - I do still have some hope that an anti-ASI leader can come to power the fully democratic way in the US, without requiring someone like me to resort to cyberattacks. It doesn't convince me that I shouldn't do cyberattacks, it just nudges me in the direction of not doing it. - I wish I didn't have to independently take decisions of what to redact versus leak. I know I've said this before, but it is worth reiterating. Ideally there should be an anti-ASI leader who takes some of these political decisions, while we focus on the technical stuff of building up cyberattack capabilities. Important note - how to find anti-ASI leaders I trust (lol lmao rofl, it's funny because this is such a lengthy and old topic). - I do still think that if political leaders in US had actual foresight, they should have all spoken to Yudkowsky already and formed an opinion already. Clearly many of them don't have that long-term planning ability. text_english/personal/main/my_entire_childhood_has_trained_me_not_to_care_about_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000004364 15245062450 033453 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-30 # My entire childhood has trained me not to care about people Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I deliberately avoid talking about my childhood on the internet. But this just seems true. - As an adult, I can choose to change. I can choose to care more. I seem to be choosing not to. - This makes me sad. - But in a sense it also feels like the correct choice. Trust mathematics not your feelings. Trust game theory. - I can still care about people in selective contexts, but not 24x7. The world is far too dangerous to care about people 24x7. Being able to switch off your empathy for people is useful in some contexts. Main 2 - Exercised and took bath. Ate. Swiped hinge some more. Late night mood is hitting. Feels nice. And different. I feel kinda melancholic. - I remember the night sky from Kohima. So different and so peaceful. Idk I saw someone's profile it had a small town railway station. Railway stations in small towns hit different. Especially at night. - Moradabad station is a nightmare though lol don't ask. - I don't know I think I would travel even more small towns in India if I had infinite time, and could replicate myself or something. - I miss travelling. I miss meeting new people. People in different towns carry different cultures. Cities are all the same, internet is homogenising everything. - Hinge profiles are so memetic lol. Not only are the profile memetic but the people themselves are becoming more memetic as a result. I spoke to someone way back (on call) and I could immediately tell here are atleast 5 different phrases you would not use if you hadn't spent time on hinge. - I am sure I have also internalised some phrases and whatnot from whichever culture. Definitely reading a bunch of SV blogs and general economics knowledge causes me to see the world in a more mathematical way - base rates, heavy-tailed distributions, dating as a problem with N samples from unknown distribution, lemon's market, etc. Oh I have definitely internalised atleast a little bit of Yudkowsky's anger, although I express it differently than him. I am aware that yelling at people on the internet goes only so far, you need to build actual weapons and actual hard power if you want to get anywhere. - OK bye. text_english/personal/main/productive_versus_unproductive_nerd_snipes.md000644 000765 000024 00000004431 15177753505 030311 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-03 # Productive versus unproductive nerd snipes Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I think one of the primary reasons I am less productive than is ideal, and hence grow to dislike myself, is that I get caught in a lot more nerd snipes than is ideal. I don't have time for all this shit, world is ending. - Sometimes the nerd snipes are important actually. For instance my initial confusion around what redaction policy to use led to confusion around my values in generak, which took me to reading about consequentialism and "lesser evil"-type reasoning, which took me to reasoning about coordination inside and outside of members of all the major political ideologies. I think this was actually productive nerd snipe in recent times. - Sometimes the nerd snipes are not important. For instance I recently considered shifting to a room with more sunlight, but ended up spending half a day writing about optimal general-purpose windows for all of humanity. Someone else in future might find this writeup useful, sure, but for me this a waste, and does not answer the immediate question of whether to shift rooms or not. All the optimal window types. I'm proposing are anyway kinda expensive, I can't just order them from amazon overnight even if I wanted - The most important thing is whether the whole nerd snipe cashes out into actual actions I take in the real world. - The politics nerd snipe mentioned above seems important because it could actually affect, for example, what type of cold emails I send to whom, and who I see as allies/neutral/enemies. It could affect my mental health a lot. - The sunlight nerd snipe mentioned above seems like a waste of time because I know I won't bother to implement any of the ideas. At best I will make a writeup asking someone else to start a company that sells motorized glazed windows or some shit. - It is a bit hard to know ahead of time which nerd snipes will cash out into important real world actions, and which will not. - **I think just having a tighter feedback loop would help. Like, ideally a more action-oriented cofounder periodically comes and asks me what am I doing, and can I justify this as cashing out into any real world actions or not. Until I have such a cofounder, I should ask myself this, atleast once at the start of each day.** text_english/personal/main/laughed_so_much_it_hurt_at_this_comment_on_supply_chain_attacks.md000644 000765 000024 00000000302 15213335442 034377 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-14 # Laughed so much it hurt, at this comment on supply chain attacks Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself [Link](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48518265)text_english/personal/main/psychological_warfare_and_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000010457 15177753505 026400 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-02 # Psychological warfare and ASI risk Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Propaganda can be used during both peacetime and war. During war, it is more appropriate to also call it psychological warfare. - I am currently at war with the people building ASI. What I signal as a person, should reflect that. Some quotes from [wikipedia article on psychological warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare) mongol empire > Genghis Khan, leader of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century AD employed less-subtle techniques. Defeating the will of the enemy before having to attack and reaching a consented settlement was preferable to facing his wrath. The Mongol generals demanded submission to the Khan and threatened the initially captured villages with complete destruction if they refused to surrender. If they had to fight to take the settlement, the Mongol generals fulfilled their threats and massacred the survivors. Tales of the encroaching horde spread to the next villages and created an aura of insecurity that undermined the possibility of future resistance. > Genghis Khan also employed tactics that made his numbers seem greater than they actually were. During night operations he ordered each soldier to light three torches at dusk to give the illusion of an overwhelming army and deceive and intimidate enemy scouts. He also sometimes had objects tied to the tails of his horses, so that riding on open and dry fields raised a cloud of dust that gave the enemy the impression of great numbers. His soldiers used arrows specially notched to whistle as they flew through the air, creating a terrifying noise. vietnam war > The United States ran an extensive program of psychological warfare during the Vietnam War. > In Operation Wandering Soul, the United States also used tapes of distorted human sounds and played them during the night making the Vietnamese soldiers think that the dead were back for revenge. > The Vietcong and their forces also used a program of psychological warfare during this war. > She made three broadcasts a day, reading a list of newly killed or imprisoned Americans, and playing popular US anti-war songs in an effort to incite feelings of nostalgia and homesickness, attempting to persuade US GIs that the US involvement in the Vietnam War was unjust and immoral. A typical broadcast began as follows: > How are you, GI Joe? It seems to me that most of you are poorly informed about the going of the war, to say nothing about a correct explanation of your presence over here. Nothing is more confused than to be ordered into a war to die or to be maimed for life without the faintest idea of what's going on. I want to google more of these examples. Actual quotes will help. Note to self - **You are not the creator of the propaganda who lives above it. You are the propaganda itself. The way you live your life should itself be the biggest propaganda there could possibly be.** See also - [Frame control by Aella](https://aella.substack.com/p/frame-control) - Aella seems to implicitly imply all frame control is universally bad, and there are no causes for which this sort of frame control is a legitimate tactic. - I think it's bad to prevent people from exiting (by restricting money, sex, etc) - I think it's bad to use some of these tactics on purpose as a con, but if you're frame controlling someone with a frame you **actually believe in**, it's not obvious to me this is bad. - I do think you should sometimes deliberately broadcast the frame (instead of keeping it hidden) and use more rationalist debate norms if the other person is interested. But also, fuck this whole idea of using rationalist debate norms 24x7, these losers are directly ending the world themselves by being this meek. - Yudkowsky is not meek and I respect him for that, he is willing to claim authority, and judge and shame others sometimes. I used to find some of this annoying back in 2022, but now I'm more like, holy fuck he was right, maybe he does deserve the authority or status he was nakedly claiming for. I'm a lot more convinced now he is one of the most important people in human history, right up there with a Darwin or Jenner or Nietzsche or Freud. > Every individual instance is not that bad”; and when the knife that wounds you is invisible, you might doubt that youre bleeding at all. text_english/personal/main/I_think_I_like_talking_to_people_with_access_to_social_dark_matter.md000644 000765 000024 00000002206 15177753505 034721 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # I think I like talking to people with access to social dark matter Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - copy-pasting an (edited version of) an older note from 2025 here. If I was not burdened with "glorious purpose", what would I be doing with my life instead? - I highly value novelty and I highly value talking to people. Novelty among people means people who have deviated from conventional societal norms in some way. - I want to talk to: - people who voluntarily celibate (such as monks), people who have orgies with 20+ people, people of LGBTQ, polyamorous people - victims of rape, torture, etc - people who have committed rape, torture, etc - policemen, soldiers - spies, people working in intelligence commmunity - professional artists, game developers etc - full-time devotees of any religion or political ideology - people who have spent periods in complete isolation (such as solitary confinement in prison), people with extended families of few hundred members - I want deeper relationships with such people, as they won't necessarily share the internal workings of their mind with someone they don't trust text_english/personal/main/in_a_utopia_I_care_about_x_in_the_real_world_I_throw_x_under_the_bus.md000644 000765 000024 00000001517 15205542656 035255 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-27 # In a utopia, I care about X. In the real world, I throw X under the bus Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - It is impressive atleast to me, this rhetorical trick. Especially so because it is true. - I can meet anyone who claims to care about falana dhimkhana whatever. Instead of saying "no I disagree" or "no this is stupid" or "no I care about Y more" I can instead just say "sure, in a utopia I would like X to be there" and then do absolutely nothing to actually bring X into the world - People just want to feel heard/seen/understood lol, they don't actually give a shit about achieving anything of value in the real world. - Okay yes, this entire post is when talking to non-serious people without any life missions (i.e. 99% of people). Don't attempt this on the 1% of people who do care. text_english/personal/main/how_to_escape_control_of_indian_parents.md000644 000765 000024 00000014050 15234142352 027417 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-05 # How to escape the control of Indian parents Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - people who want to escape parental control - I am biased by Indian environment in this post, this doesn't apply to every environment - I have not spent a lot of time on this post. Don't take advice from internet strangers on a topic as important as this, unless you've really thought it through. - This post only applies to you if you do feel actively and significantly controlled by your parents. This is true only for a certain subset of the population. Main - This has been a post I have been hesitating to write for a long time. Why? - Parental control is one of the biggest problems in India. - Lots of people in previous generation are parents and hold positions of political power. The political pressure to not publicly talk about this topic in India is staggering. - I fully expect an intergenerational culture war to exist in India in the next 10 years once current children become adults, assuming the human race exists 10 years from now. See South Korea for an example of what an intergenerational culture war looks like. - A lot of western authors online know jack shit about this topic, including therapists. - Even now, I don't think I will write a long post, for safety reasons. - The short answer is this. - It would be nice if you had money and political connections (since child rights are non-existent in India) and a social circle that would defend you. In practice, there's a significant chance you have none of these things. - **When you have nothing to protect you, the only thing that can protect you is willpower. Decide in advance that you are literally willing to commit suicide (or murder) or go to prison, than be controlled by your parents. Go all-in.** - This has to be a commitment you really believe and not a bluff. Some parents are very manipulative and will successfully call out your bluff, if it is a bluff. - Some rare parents are violent enough that will pursue conflict with you anyway. - They are genuinely fine with you committing suicide or going to prison. - But most parents are not like this, and will fold when you demonstrate this level of willpower. Most parents care about their children atleast a little, and care about their image in society atleast a little. If you commit suicide or go to prison, this also hurts their image in society. - If you don't have this level of willpower, you may have to build it up over time. - Spend some time away from your parents with some excuse, to compare and contrast how this is, versus living with them. If you haven't lived apart for any time duration at all, you probably have genuinely no idea what living apart from them is like. - Figure out what you actually care most about in life (very hard challenge). Figure out if your parents are actually accepting of this, and if not, how badly it hurts you to not fulfill what you care most about in life. - It is possible that being under the control of your parents feels only mildly bad but not extremely bad. - In this case, I don't have some magic insights for you. - Plenty of people waste away their entire lives in situations that are mildly bad but not extremely bad, and you are welcome to join their ranks. --- 2026-07-15 ## Update - **This is a biased list, but I like the writings of Pete Walker, Issen Dai and Daniel Mackler.** (I don't 100% endorse their worldviews as is, but like I said, I like their writings.) --- 2026-08-03 ## Update - Assuming you do manage to get into a position where you are not in their control, you probably now have a choice as to whether you want to be honest with them, or continue to hide your life from them or deceive them about what your life is actually like. - **I will try to make a case for why you may want to be honest with them, although I am aware you might see this differently than I do, and you may not shared my values or life goals.** - The most important thing here is to see the long-term consequences of your actions and to notice the type of person you are becoming, as a result of the actions you are taking. - Benefits of being honest with your parents, for you personally: - Because you are comfortable standing up to authority and being honest in this case, this will have a tendency to percolate into other aspects of your life. You may be able to be more authentic, and not have to suppress as many parts of yourself for the sake of others. - Being authentic could intrinsically make your more happy, even in aspects of your life unrelated to this one. - Being authentic could help you find and negotiate better relationships in your life, unrelated to this one. - Being willing to stand up to authority could benefit you situations apart from this one too. - Benefits of being honest with your parents, for society as a whole: - I (Samuel) am someone who values the truth a lot. I am very dismayed to live in a country full of people who have been trained in the arts of deception and status games, because they are unwilling to be honest with their family. - I understand that being skilled at deception has its advantages. However, I see most people use these skills to fight for the pettiest of stakes. - If you want to become skilled at deception because you want to get into politics and improve the country's governance, I might still be able to respect that. - If you want to become skilled at deception because you want a slightly bigger salary or you want to steal your parent's property or similar, I think this is probably a suboptimal way to live your life, and also makes society worse off. I tend to not respect people whose primary objective in life is stuff like this. - I think a lot of problems in society can be fixed if enough people were willing to actually be honest about the problems in it. Suppression of common knowledge is a thing, and families, religious institutions, governments, etc tend to collude to suppress the formation of common knowledge about the problem. This is not a problem specific to India, ofcourse. text_english/personal/main/I_wanna_be_an_assassin_I_dont_wanna_write_code_ugh.md000644 000765 000024 00000002137 15231574776 031454 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-27 # I wanna be an assassin, I don't wanna write code. Ugh Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - This is yet another rant post, also I maybe wanna figure out why I am procrastinating on my work. Main - A lot of the stuff I wrote in the motivation section of the "I am looking for a cofounder" doc is actually more conducive to becoming an assassin than a hacker. Especially the "kill or be killed" mindset. - Becoming a great hacker requires you to be actually curious about how internals of various systems work. Like, how does the kernel manage memory, how does the EVM compiler work, how does HTTPS get implemented if you look at raw packet captures, and so on. - I am curious about these things but not thaaaat curious. - There is something about actual physical violence that is a very satisfying to the limbic system in a way that staring at solidity code is not. - I think the key emotion missing here is curiosity. I need to be more curious about how internals of these systems work. I will become all-powerful if I understood it, so this might motivate me? Let's see. text_english/personal/main/good_day_positive_interpersonal_interactions_helps_build_momentum.md000644 000765 000024 00000000632 15233445541 035035 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-02 # Good day. Positive interpersonal interactions. Helps build momentum Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Title self-explanatory. - [Rest of notes private.] - You know a city is badly designed when someone delays the meeting, and it makes more rational sense to get a hotel halfway across the city, than to go back to your place and then return for the meeting. text_english/personal/main/add_having_no_overflow_protection_is_hillarious.md000644 000765 000024 00000002625 15232075402 031201 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-28 # ADD having no overflow protection is hillarious Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Finally doing some actual work lol - The important part - load the phrase "curiosity about how EVM works" into your working memory. > This behavior, combined with Solidity’s historical lack of built-in overflow protection (pre-0.8.0), made integer overflow the single largest class of smart contract vulnerabilities from 2016 to 2020, responsible for hundreds of millions in losses. - [Link to source](https://krash.dev/evm-tm/OpCodes-Threat-Models/0x01-ADD) - Spent 30 seconds just staring at this sentence and laughing --- update > When a proxy contract uses delegatecall to forward execution to an implementation contract, and that implementation is destroyed (via SELFDESTRUCT) or was never deployed, the delegatecall targets address with no code. The EVM executes STOP, returning success. The proxy now silently does nothing for every call, permanently bricking itself. - [Link to source](https://krash.dev/evm-tm/OpCodes-Threat-Models/0x00-STOP#t1-delegatecall-to-emptydestroyed-contract-critical) - What the fuck lmao. Whoever designed the EVM is completely insane. I mean I get it, they didn't think about smart contract security back in 2016, but still. - I did not know the state of smart contract security is this bad. Finally starting to understand why it is like this. text_english/personal/main/I_dislike_dating_as_status_game.md000644 000765 000024 00000022153 15177753505 025620 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-04 # I dislike dating as a status game Disclaimer - Quick Note **I dislike the extent to which many people around me [1] treat dating as a status game.** This post is me exploring why. - Self-fulfilling prophecies - As a man, if you rank highly on objective [2] metrics that make you dateable, you are more likely than the average man to treat women as expendable and remind them you have many options besides them. You may even be rationally correct in doing so, atleast in the early stages of dating. You don't have to actually utter the words, you will probably signal it in your behaviour anyway. - Because such men exist, if you give out the signals of someone who has a lot of options, this in turn makes it more likely you are one of these men. So you are now incentivised to pretend you have a lot of options, regardless of whether you actually do, because this makes you more likely to have more options. "Fake it until you make it" and "manifestation" are other common terms for this behaviour. - This sort of salesmanship has a lot in common with [stag hunts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt), which are present across many other domains in life. If you want to coordinate a lot of people towards a goal, it helps if you tell each person that everyone else is already on your side, regardless of whether they actually are. "Self-fulfilling prophecies" are an important mechanism people use to coordinate in general. This is common when trying to start a startup or start a political party or similar group. - Are self-fulfilling prophecies all fraud? - In my head, I find it hard to separate "being extremely good at winning stag hunts via self-fulfilling prophecy-styled rhetoric" from outright deception and fraud. [Parasitic language games](https://hazardoustimes.substack.com/p/parasitic-language-games) by Hazard Spence does a good job explaining why. The objective criteria (looks, conscientiousness, protectiveness, etc) still matter, and playing the self-fulfilling prophecy game sufficiently well means lying about where you stand on the objective criteria. The lying could be telling actual lies or lying via omission. - To put in simple words, I think it is way better to actually be a good match for your partner, than to use status games and self-fulling-prophecy-styled-rhetoric to pretend to be one. Successfully using such rhetoric blurs their ability to see you clearly, and this is bad. If you are actually a good match, they should just be able to see that directly, you shouldn't have to use salesmanship on top. - I wonder if this is why I have an aversion to becoming good at sales in general, across all domains in life. In my professional life, I am trying to start a mass movement against AI companies. This is exactly the type of goal where a leader who uses self-fulfilling-prophecy-styled rhetoric would help. But I seem to refuse to do any of it. - Maybe rejection is good? - I also seem to see it as morally wrong in some small way to seduce a woman into being with you, knowing full well that there exist other people who are a lot better suited to her than you are. I generally prefer relationships where both people are happy in it, and neither person is being kept away from way better options. I want to optimise for the long-term interest of my partner even if that long-term interest ultimately means her not being with me. - This is also why I nowadays sometimes see being rejected by someone I like as a good thing. "Maybe you do in fact have some information that makes it correct for you to reject me and find someone better, and maybe I do in fact want you to find someone better if that is the case." I am aware men and women reject each other for stupid reasons basically all the time, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt that maybe the other person is not stupid. At the very least, maybe the type of person I want to attract long-term is not stupid about these things. - I am also genuinely confused why women attach so much value to men who are high status. - I understand that if you are a woman, and you notice a man has many admirers (both men and women), this gives you useful information about them. At the very least, it tells you they are safe to hang around with. - But once you do have actual information about the person, obtained by spending time with them, you can then trust the actual information, instead of using status as a proxy signal for it. So while I understand using status as a signal to evaluate strangers, I don't see why this should be used if you actually know them to some extent. - I understand that women are evolutionarily hardwired to value status in men. - For most of human history, women had to rely on their partners to protect themselves from actual physical violence from third parties. (Today they can rely more on the institution of the nation state instead, atleast in those countries with good rule of law. [3]) As a woman, attaching yourself to a man who is respected by many people, decreases the likelihood you will experience violence or rape or similar. Because this fact was true for tens of thousands of years (and probably even was true for apes, I think?) there was probably some evolutionary selection pressure for women valuing status. (I have not actually looked at the evidence base behind this though, so this is a weak opinion. Many evo bio explanations are easy to spin in whichever direction is convenient, until you actually look at the evidence.) - Even if it is hardwired, is the wiring so strong that you can't undo it? - Some wirings are in fact that strong. The wiring for physical attraction is very strong for example. As a man, I find most fat women unattractive. I can't simply change this wiring by telling myself "actually fat women probably have just as valuable personalities as other women". - Other wirings are not that strong. For instance, as someone with a lot of technical knowledge, I naturally gravitate to people (both men and women) who also have a lot of knowledge. But I am able to reflect on this and realise that actually this preference isn't fundamental, I am capable of dating women who aren't as knowledgible or educated as me, and I can be really happy in those relationships. - I am curious to know if women's desire for high status men is a preference they can change after reflection or not. - As a personal orientation, I don't actually want to waste time accumulating options? - My current understanding of dating is that once a woman satisfies certain basic criteria, I should just commit to them, because a lot of the value of relationships comes from keeping them long-term. I am sympathetic to the idea that relationships are built not found. I don't see the value in holding out and waiting years for someone who is an 8.5/10 in terms of longterm compatibility, if I have already found someone who is an 8/10, assuming finding 8/10s is not hard. (Note that these scores are for longterm compatibility, and not physical attraction.) - That being said, this is still a weak opinion because I lack data. Maybe outlier amazing relationships do in fact exist, are in fact worth waiting for, instead of committing to people who are good for you but not amazing for you. Maybe there are people out there who are 15/10 in terms of longterm compability to me, but I never even considered this possibility, because my very idea of what 10 means is calibrated by the people I have already met. - I currently have a lot of probability mass on "commit to decent relationships" being better than "wait for amazing relationships" for me personally. Ultimately the only way to be sure is to get more data, be it personal experience or anecdotal data from others or large internet datasets. - In my head it sounds endearing to say to someone, "you know what, there might exist other women in this world who are better for me than you are, on objective criteria like looks or education or whatever. But I choose you anyway." I like this type of sentiment, but I don't know how others perceive it. [1] I think this probably applies to many human cultures across time and space, not just "people around me", but I am less sure about that part. If it applies to many cultures, then me saying I dislike status games in dating is the same as saying I dislike human nature, which is basically "old man yells at cloud". But also fuck it this is my personal section so I will be more tolerating of expressing my own emotions here. [2] Let's skip the whole debate on what these objective criteria are. I am currently somewhat sympathetic to Geoffrey Miller's criteria, but it doesn't matter what they are, I think most people agree that some objective criteria exist. When I say objective criteria, I just mean criteria that are universally shared by most women, as opposed to criteria that are unique to each woman. [3] I am aware that proving you were raped in court is still hard today, even in countries with good rule of law. I'm saying most of human history was probably worse than this, if you did not have a male elder or partner to protect you. There's also a whole related discussion on culture, and who society was more likely to believe, which I will leave out of scope of this post. text_english/personal/main/minimalism_helps_me_think_longterm.md000644 000765 000024 00000006227 15177753505 026442 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-05 # Minimalism helps think long term Disclaimer - Quick Note - writing this because I saw some people criticise minimalist lifestyle on the internet for what I think are wrong reasons I seem to lead a fairly minimalist life, atleast nowadays. I periodically and actively delete things in my life that don't serve my main 1-2 life goals, where these "things" in question include everything from people to logistics to digital life. - People - I seem to have high standards for a cofounder or donor or research collaborator or similar, and basically ignore most other people. - I seem to have high standards for hiring anyone, and prefer to avoid hiring. - Logistics - I avoid most my own logistics. I don't cook my food or own a car. I don't manage a house or any office space. I definitely don't have immediate plans to purchase any property. - If I was slightly richer I would probably hire a PA full-time to handle whatever logistics I do handle right now. - Digital life - I seem to increasingly avoid social media, with careful policies for the few social media I do handle. Same goes for using dev dependencies, or consumer apps, etc etc. Should everyone do this? - I don't want to claim minimalist life is a universal good everyone should follow. I am not even sure if I should follow it in future or not. - I will say however, that I think this way of life helped me a fair bit. In particular, I think I spend a lot more time focussed on questions that seem important long-term - for instance I have spent many months trying to figure out how trust in relationships works, or how to make money to escape college placements, or how to become famous online - as opposed to questions about day-to-day matters like how to repair the tap or whatever. - I have not run a counterfactual experiment, I don't know what an alternate Samuel with more distractions in life would do. - It is important that I eventually solve these questions though. Endless rumination is only worth it if I actually succeed at the end. I have some actual success to show for, in life, but not a lot compared to where I wanna be. - I am sympathetic to the idea that focussing on the present makes you happy, and doing any long-term planning whatsoever might make you less happy in the short-term. I don't think my practice necessarily makes me happy. I endorse minimalism while I answer a few questions that I consider important enough that I spend more time on them. - In particular, I seem to have not accumulated a lot of hobbies, or a lot of friends I want to hang out with, via this lifestyle. (I have friends but the minimalism or lack, was probably not the primary reason we became friends.) I can imagine a future Samuel being less minimalist because they have, let's say, a specific hobby they wanna focus on full-time. - I can also imagine a future Samuel being less minimalist because they are even more productivity-focussed than I am now. I don't try to work 80 hours a week because I know I can't consistently keep that up over the long term. If I could however consistently keep it up, and knew that purchasing some logistical help was the only thing stopping me, I would immediately do it. text_english/personal/main/incomplete_jee_physics_book_from_2019.md000644 000765 000024 00000204727 15177753505 026564 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-23 ## Repost note I consider some parts of this interesting here and there, but also, I currently have less than zero interest in continuing this work. It is a bit funny for me to look at it now and realise, oh right, past Samuel spent two full years just drilling mental shortcuts for how to crack JEE. I have honestly forgotten atleast some the shortcuts here that apparently Samuel!2019 knew about. It is a little depressing realising how much of my life I have wasted doing things that don't matter, but anyways, the point right now is not to crib about that, but to do something that does matter. 2019-07 # Incomplete JEE physics book from 2019 ## Link to PDF: [Incomplete JEE physics book from 2019](../../../non_text_non_video/incomplete_jee_physics_book_from_2019.pdf) Original latex (I used overleaf.com to render it back then) ``` \documentclass{book} \usepackage{siunitx} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{gensymb} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{esint} \title{JEE Physics Book self written} \author{samuel.da.shadrach } \date{July 2019} \begin{document} \maketitle \tableofcontents{} \chapter{How to do your calculations} Here are some tips regarding how you do your calculations. Ideally you should have already thought about things like this and would be following the tips mentioned. These should be strong habits formed early on. \begin{enumerate} \item Take values common wherever you can (except with simple values where it doesn't really matter). It improves speed of calculation. Addition is generally faster than multiplication and taking values common reduces the number of multiplication steps you have to do. For example, suppose I obtain the equation $$\frac12 mv_1^2 + \frac{GMm}{r_1} = U_0 + \frac12 mv_2^2 + \frac{GMm}{r_2}$$ All the values are known except for $r_2$, we need to simply plug in the values to obtain the answer. Bad way to solve: $$\frac12 mv_1^2 + \frac{GMm}{r_1} = U_0 + \frac12 mv_2^2 + \frac{GMm}{r_2}$$ $$\frac12 \times 11 \times (1.44)^2 + \frac{6.67 \times 10^{-11} \times 2000 \times 11}{1.3 \times 10^{-9}}$$ $$= 13.6 + \frac12 \times 11 \times (1.96)^2 + \frac{6.67\times 10^{-11} \times 2000 \times 11}{r_2}$$ $$11.405 + (11.287 \times 10^{-2}) = 13.6 + 21.13 + \frac{14.67 \times 10^{-7}}{r_2} $$ Apart from saving time on calculations, taking values common is also arguably neater and saves time consumed in writing the same value repeatedly. \begin{itemize} \item If a value/variable is common across all or almost all terms, divide the entire equation by that value/variable (unless one of the values being divided is an unknown to be solved for). In this case $m$ is a value common across almost the entire equation. We can divide to obtain $$\frac{v_1^2}2 + \frac{GM}{r_1} = \frac{U_0}{m} + \frac{v_2^2}2 + \frac{GM}{r_2}$$ \item Take variables common before substituting the values if possible We could have first substituted the values and then taken $m = 11$ common like (not recommended): $$\frac12 \times 11 \times (1.44)^2 + \frac{6.67 \times 10^{-11} \times 2000 \times 11}{1.3 \times 10^{-9}} $$ $$= 13.6 + \frac12 \times 11 \times (1.96)^2 + \frac{6.67\times 10^{-11} \times 2000 \times 11}{r_2}$$ $$\frac12 \times (1.44)^2 + \frac{6.67 \times 10^{-11} \times 2000}{1.3 \times 10^{-9}}$$ $$= \frac{13.6}{11} + \frac12 \times (1.96)^2 + \frac{6.67\times 10^{-11} \times 2000}{r_2}$$ You should always prefer taking values common before substituting values as it looks neater and it is easier to keep mental track of what you have written. It's also easier to identify values that can be taken common when they are variables. \item If a value/variable is common across some terms, just take it common (no use of dividing the entire equation) Now that we have divided the equation by $m$, we can still take $GM$ commmon. We can also take constants such as $\frac12$ common, though for simple constants it doesn't matter much. $$\frac{v_1^2 - v_2^2}2 + GM(\frac1{r_1} - \frac1{r_2}) = \frac{U_0}{m}$$ At this point our equation is as simplified as possible and we can substitute values. \end{itemize} \item As you become comfortable doing calculations mentally, try reducing the number of steps you're actually writing down. Try doing two to three steps at a time mentally without writing down each individual step. This saves time in writing. If you are struggling a bit, practise. If you are struggling a lot, never mind, go back to how much you were writing earlier. If you are able to cut down on steps but are making a lot more careless mistakes than earlier, practise reducing them by thinking through each step slowly. Again, if you are simply unable to avoid making lots of mistakes, go back to how you used to calculate earlier. \item Avoid careless mistakes. Making more than one careless mistake in 10 calculation problems will significantly impact your jee results. \begin{itemize} \item Make a conscious effort to reduce this. Slow down your speed to reduce mistakes, then try increasing speed again once you're comfortable at a slower speed. \item If you tend to make careless mistakes, also make a habit of checking the approximate range of your answers (including intermediate steps). For instance, $23.45 \times 487.61$ is approximately $20 \times 500 = 10,000$. Check that your answer is approximately $10,000$. Once your accuracy is near perfect however, this may be an unnecessary step. \end{itemize} \item Get used to a certain kind of pen This could be either pens with a thick body or pens with a thin body. It could be a gel pen or a ball pen. Keeping your pen type consistent (ideally same brand) will improve writing speed as well prevent your hand from tiring out. JEE usually provides a thin body ball pen. \item Diagrams should roughly indicate dimensional information Drawing diagrams exactly to scale is usually an unnecessary waste of time. \begin{itemize} \item However, if you know the dimensions of the figure, drawing them approximately correctly relative to each other can be crucial in avoiding confusion later on. For instance a rectangle of $20 \si{cm} \times 67 \si{cm}$ should have the longer side atleast twice as large as the smaller side. As another example, if you have to find the centre of mass of a $5\si{kg}$ mass and a $2 \si{kg}$ mass, mark the centre of mass closer to the larger mass even though you haven't solved for the exact centre of mass yet. If you make a guess on a dimension while drawing a figure and it turns out vastly incorrect on solving, redraw the figure. For instance, given a set of masses if you mark the centre of mass to right of one of the masses but it turns out it actually lies to the left of it. \item Sometimes you may avoid dimensional information altogether for convenience, but make a mental note of the fact that your diagram does not have dimensional information and then proceed. For example, when dealing with coordinate geometry in maths, it is common to not plot the points given or find the relative distances given since the solution of such problems often doesn't require either of these. In such a case, make all distances roughly equal; do not arbitrarily decide to make some distances longer than others. If at any point you are confused or require better clarity of the problem to solve it, make a figure. \item If dimensional information is unknown, make all distances roughly equal in your figure, as in 3b This is common when dealing with generalised variables rather than values, or variables whose values are yet to be solved. Once you have solved values however, if the problem is not yet solved, you may redraw the figure. This is particularly important if the solved values are vastly apart, for instance if two distances that you drew as roughly equal turn out to be in the ratio of $1:100$ \end{itemize} \item When to write units \begin{itemize} \item Avoid writing units in intermediate steps if all your quantities are in SI \item If all quantities can be easily converted to SI by multiplying/dividing by some power of 10, do so in the very first step or whenever your introduce those values into the calculation. Once converted, you can again avoid writing units repeatedly \item When your units cannot be converted to SI instantly, keep track of units. Writing them repeatedly every step is still unnecessary, write them once somewhere on the page. \item If you're using a well known set of units, such as bar-litre for thermodynamics or celsius for temperature, converting to SI is unnecessary. \end{itemize} \end{enumerate} \chapter{Trigonometry} You would have learnt basic trigonometry in class 10 maths. You will learn a lot more for jee, mainly in maths. \section{Angles} An angle measures the relative rotation between two rays with common origin. Two lines must exist in the same plane for there to exist an angle between them (because we need them to intersect), and this angle is measured in the common plane. For 2d geometry this is irrelevent, in 3d it matters. \section{Directed and undirected angles} \subsection{Undirected angles} Angles can be directed or undirected. Angles you have studied so far are undirected and their range is $[0\degree,180\degree)$. This is interval notation and denotes $0\degree \leq \theta < 180\degree$ (square bracket means $\leq$, $\geq$ while simple bracket means $<$,$>$). Angles above $180\degree$ (but below $360\degree$) can be converteed to standard form by subtracting them from $360\degree$. Angles above $360\degree$ can be converted to standard form by first adding/subtracting multiples of $360\degree$ to get them in the $0\degree$ to $360\degree$ range followed by subtracting from $360\degree$ if the angle is obtuse Q. Convert undirected angle $-1643\degree$ to simplest form A. First note that a negative sign has no relevance for undirected angles, as undirected angles are always positive. Delete the minus sign to get $1643\degree$ Now subtract $360\degree$ repeatedly until we get the value below $360\degree$. Subtracting $360\degree \times 4 = 1440\degree$ gives $203\degree$. This is a reflex angle. Subtract it from $360\degree$ to obtain $157\degree$ which is the answer. \subsection{Directed angles} A directed angle measures the rotaton of a second ray from a first ray. Rotation can be clockwise or anti-clockwise, by convention anti-clockwise is positive and clockwise is negative. \textbf{(insert figure of +30 degrees and -30 degrees)} Standard domain of a directed angle is $[0\degree,360\degree)$ or $(-180\degree,180\degree]$, to convert an angle falling out of standard domain, repeatedly add or subtract $360 \degree$ Q. Convert directed angle $-1643\degree$ to simplest form A. Add $360\degree$ repeatedly. Adding $4$ times gives $-3\degree$. You can leave the answer as such, or add $360\degree$ again to obtain positive answer $357\degree$ When considering undirected angles, $+20\degree$ is the same as $-20\degree$ which is the same as $340\degree$ which is the same as $-340\degree$. An undirected angle does not indicate clockwise / anti-clockwise, it only indicates the relation between two rays. A directed angle, however, allows you to uniquely define the position of a second ray with respect to a first ray. For instance, if I have a ray drawn and I tell you that a second ray makes angle $20\degree$ (undirected) with it. This gives you two possibilities for the second ray. However if if I specify $+20\degree$ or $-20\degree$, it uniquely specifies the second ray. So $+20\degree$ is the same as $-340\degree$ since they both specify the same ray, similarly $-20\degree$ and $+340\degree$ specify the same ray. \textbf{(insert appropriate figures)} In the $[0,180\degree]$ range, both directed and undirected angles behave in exactly the same way. \subsection{Angle between lines} Note that the two methods measure an angle between two rays (line segments with a direction). What about the angle between two intersecting lines? Two intersecting lines form two pairs of angles, one pair being obtuse and the other pair being acute (boundary cases are perpendicular lines and coincident lines). We could define a convention that we will only look at the smaller angle; after all, the larger angle can simply be found from the smaller one. In such a case our angles get the range $[0\degree,90\degree]$ \textbf{(INSERT figures of acute/obtuse, perpendicular, coincident and parallel)} \section{Radian system of measurement} $360\degree$ has been arbitrarily decided as the measure of a full rotation in the degree system of measurement. Isn't a measurement such as $\frac{1}{12}$ rotation more natural than $30\degree$? Yes, it is. The radian system is somewhat similar. The radian system defines 1 full rotation as $2\pi\si{rad}$. Here $\pi = 3.1415\ldots$, so $$1\si{rad} = \frac{360\degree}{2\pi} = 57.296\ldots$$ The degree symbol is not used with radian measurements. Defining 1 rotation as $2\pi\si{rad}$ might feel weird at first, here's the reasoning behind it. Q. Given a circular arc that subtends $\theta\degree$ at the centre of a circle of radius $r$, find the length of the arc. A. Simple unitary method $$Angle = 360\degree \implies l = 2\pi r$$ $$Angle = 1\degree \implies l = \frac{2\pi r}{360}$$ $$Angle = \theta \degree \implies l = \frac{2\pi r\theta}{360}$$ Q. Given a circular arc that subtends $\theta\si{rad}$ at the centre of a circle of radius $r$, find the length of the arc. A. Similarly $$Angle = 2\pi\si{rad} \implies l = 2\pi r$$ $$Angle = 1\si{rad} \implies l = r$$ $$Angle = \theta \si{rad} \implies l = r\theta$$ The radian system of measurement allows for the very simple formula $l=r\theta$. This further allows for simple formulas such as $A=\frac12 r^2\theta$ for area of a sector or $v = r\omega$, $a= r\alpha$ for angular velocity and acceleration (will be taught later). Memorise the following table, these are the most commonly used values: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| } \hline Degrees & Radians \\ \hline $30\degree$ & $\frac\pi6$ \\ $60\degree$ & $\frac\pi3$ \\ $90\degree$ & $\frac\pi2$ \\ $180\degree$ & $\pi$ \\ $270\degree$ & $\frac{3\pi}{2}$ \\ $45\degree$ & $\frac\pi4$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} \section{Trigonometric functions} You would already be familiar with the following \textbf{(insert figure of right angled triangle with appropriate parts marked)} $$\sin\theta = \frac{Opp}{Hyp}$$ $$\cos\theta = \frac{Base}{Hyp}$$ $$\tan\theta = \frac{sin\theta}{cos\theta} = \frac{Opp}{Base}$$ $$\csc\theta = \frac{1}{\sin\theta}$$ $$\sec\theta = \frac{1}{\cos\theta}$$ $$\cot\theta = \frac{1}{\tan\theta}$$ So far you would have studied this only for acute angles ($0\degree\leq\theta\leq90\degree$). We will now learn how to define these for general angles. A right angled triangle with an obtuse or reflex angle inside does not make sense, hence we will have to use a definition different from the one involving opposite, base and hypotenuse. Assume a circle of radius $1$ centred at the origin. If the ray $OP$ makes directed angle $\theta$ with the positive x-axis, we define $\sin\theta$ to be the y coordinate of the point $P$ and $\cos\theta$ to be the x coordinate of the point $P$. Then we define the other 4 functions in terms of $\sin$ and $\cos$ as earlier. So $\tan\theta = \frac\sin\theta\cos\theta$, $\sec\theta = \frac1\cos\theta$ and so on. \textbf{(insert appropriate figures)} As an example, a ray making angle $\frac{5\pi}{4}$ is shown in figure. Its coordinates are $(\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}})$. So $\sin(\frac{5\pi}{4}) = x = \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}$, $\cos(\frac{5\pi}{4}) = y = \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}$, $\tan(\frac{5\pi}{4}) = \frac x y = 1$ and so on. As you can see, the trigonometric functions of $\frac{5\pi}{4}\si{rad}$ share some relation with those of $\frac\pi4\si{rad}$ due to symmetry \textbf{(insert appro. figures)} We can divide the x-y plane into 4 quadrants based on the sign of x and y coordinates in that plane. We can then also find out the sign (positive/negative) of each of the trigonometric functions in that quadrant. \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c| } \hline Range for $\theta$ & $x$ & $y$ & Quadrant & $\sin\theta$ & $\cos\theta$ & $\tan\theta$ \\ \hline $0<\theta<\frac\pi2$ & $+$ & $+$ & Ist & $+$ & $+$ & $+$ \\ $\frac\pi2<\theta<\pi$ & $-$ & $+$ & IInd & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\ $\pi<\theta<\frac{3\pi}2$ & $-$ & $-$ & IIIrd & $-$ & $-$ & $+$ \\ $\frac{3\pi}2<\theta<2\pi$ & $+$ & $-$ & IVth & $-$ & $+$ & $-$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{center} Note that trigonometry strictly uses directed angles, in fact this was the main motivation of teaching directed angles to begin with. Ofcourse it does not matter in the $(0,\pi)$ range, but once outside this range it is something to keep note of. \section{Formulae} \textbf{(insert list of formulae here)} Proofs of these formulae will be covered in maths. For now just memorise them or come back to them later. Extra box: Simple proof for $\sin(A+B) = \sin A \cos b + \cos A \sin B$ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AngleAdditionDiagramSine.svg \section{Graphs of trigonometric functions} \textbf{(insert graphs here)} You should remember the graphs of sin, cos and tan, and be able to plot the graphs of the other three using the first three if required. \section{Inverse trigonometry} \textbf{INCOMPLETE. will come back to this later} \chapter{Functions and graph-plotting} \textbf{(INSERT all the graphs and tables of sets of points used for this chapter)} Q. Plot $y = x^2+3$ A. Take a few points and plot the function Q. Plot $y = 2-x$ A. Take a few points and plot. This is a straight line, so two points will do. Q. Plot $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ A. Here $y$ is not a function of $x$, nevertheless we can plot it. Take some points that satisfy the equation and plot. Incidentally, we get the plot of a circle Q. Plot $x^2 + y^2 = -1$ A. This equation has no solutions, hence no plot. The square of a number is always positive and positive numbers cannot add up to a negative number Q. Plot $y = \sin x$ A. Plot Q. Plot $y = \sin 2x$ A. Here we have a $2$ attached to $x$. We can plot this by squeezing the previous plot by a factor of $2$ along the x-axis Q. Plot $y = \sin \frac x 2$ A. Here we can stretch the graph by a factor of $2$ along the x-axis Q. Plot $y = 2 \sin x$ A. We will stretch the graph for $y = \sin x$ by a factor of $2$ along the y-axis. Note that we can rewrite the equation as $\frac y 2 = \sin x$ qand the same rules that apply for x also apply for y Q. Plot $x = \sin y$ A. We will simply flip the graph along the line $x = y$ since $x$ and $y$ have swapped roles. This is again to show that $x$ and $y$ are identical in all respects, it is just customary to plot a function of the form $y = f(x)$ where $f$ satisfies the properties of a "function" (see ncert). But in general any relation between $x$ and $y$ can be plotted. Q. Plot $y = \sin^2 x$ A. We will try squaring all the previous values of $\sin x$. Note that the negative portion of $y=\sin x$ has flipped over as negative values too become positive when squared. A positive increasing function remains increasing when squared and a positive decreasing function remains decreasing when squared. Q. Plot $y^2 = sin^2 x$ A. Some thinking is required here. This equation basically translates to the union of the graphs of $y = \sin x$ and $y = - \sin x$ Q. Plot $y^2 = x^4 + x^2$ A. For positive x, it is clear to see that the function is strictly increasing. Increasing $x$ will increase $y$. Also this is an example of an even function, meaning $f(x) = f(-x)$. Substituting $x=2$ or $x= -2$ will provide the same value for $y$. We can simply plot the positive half of the function and mirror it to obtain the plot when x is negative. \textbf{(INCOMPLETE, possibly)} \chapter{Vectors} Q. A man travels 40 m east. Then 50 m north. Then 50 m south west (along the 45 degree line). Find the distance between his final and original position. A. Man initally starts at coordinates $(0,0)$ suppose. Then goes to $(40,0)$. Then $(40,50)$. Then he travels along a 45 degree line, how do we solve now? We could find his displacement along both x and y axes. By simple trigonometry, these displacements will be $50\sin45\degree$ and $50\cos45\degree$. Hence his final coordinates are $(40-\frac{50}{\sqrt2},50-\frac{50}{\sqrt2})$. We still need to find his distance from origin. We know that the distance of a point $(x,y)$ from $(0,0)$ is simply $\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ so we can apply this to get $\sqrt{(40-\frac{50}{\sqrt2})^2+ (50-\frac{50}{\sqrt2})^2}$ which can then be somewhat simplified. Why was it convenient to use coordinates for this problem? Couldn't we have just drawn a figure without x and y axes and then tried solving as a geometry problem? When we have quantities that specify movement in arbitrary directions that need to be added (in this case, the various displacements of the person), often the easiest approach is to consider the influence of each of these movements along the coordinate axes. This provides the necessary motivation to define vectors as we soon will. \section{Vectors} A vector is a quantity that: \begin{itemize} \item has magnitude (magnitude is always positive) \item has direction \item obeys the vector law of addition (will be described soon) \end{itemize} Some examples of vectors would be position, displacement, velocity, force, etc. In contrast, scalars are quantities that only possess magnitude and optionally a sign (+/-). For instance, work done is a scalar that can be both positive and negative, while distance is a scalar that is always positive. A vector can be drawn on paper as an arrow. For instance a velocity of 5 m/s towards 45 degrees south of east can be drawn as an arrow with length 5 units pointing in the correct direction. \textbf{(INSERT figure)} A vector can also be denoted as a quantity with a small arrow above it, for instance $\vec{v}$. A vector has both magnitude and direction so we can denote this by $\vec{v} = v \hat{v}$. Here $v$ is the magnitude and $\hat{v}$ is the direction. $\hat{v}$ is called a unit vector and its magnitude is $1$ (meaning to say that the magnitude of the direction of $\hat{v}$ is $1$ since all the magnitude of $\vec{v}$ is already stored in $v$). It is common to specify vectors in terms of the x and y axes, so for instance we could have $\vec{v} = 4\hat{i} + 5\hat{j}$. This indicates a vector whose x component is $4$ and y component is $5$ as shown in the figure. \textbf{(INSERT figure)} $\hat{i}$ is the unit vector in the x direction and $\hat{j}$ is the unit vector in the y direction. When you encounter 3D geometry, $\hat{k}$ is the unit vector in the z direction. The magnitude of $\vec{v}$, denoted by $|\vec{v}|$ or simply $v$ is given by the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual components (as we already have somewhat seen). So $v = \sqrt{4^2 + 5^2} = \sqrt{41}$. The direction however will have to be calculated. We know that $\vec{v} = v\hat{v}$ so $$\hat{v} = \frac{\vec{v}}{v} = \frac{4\hat{i} + 5\hat{j}}{\sqrt{41}} = \frac{4}{\sqrt41}\hat{i} + \frac{5}{\sqrt41}\hat{j}$$ This may look complicated but is the standard way of representing direction. Note that the magnitude of a direction (unit vector) is one, as seen by squaring and adding components. $$|\hat{v}| = \sqrt{(\frac{4}{\sqrt41})^2 + (\frac{5}{\sqrt41})^2} = 1$$ \section{Vector addition} Suppose we have a displacement vector of $2\hat{i} + 3\hat{j}$. Then we have another displacement vector of $3\hat{i} + \hat{j}$. What is the total displacement? Some thought will tell you that you can simply add the x and y components separately to obtain $(2+3)\hat{i} + (3+1)\hat{j}$ which gives $5\hat{i} + 4\hat{j}$ Now suppose these vectors were drawn instead of being written in component form (as $x\hat{i} + y\hat{j}$). How do you add the two arrows given in the figure? \textbf{(INSERT figure with two arrows with space between them)} \textbf{(INSERT figure with the same two arrows placed tail to head)} It makes sense to place the vectors such that the head of one vector touches the tail of the next vector. The resultant vector is given by connecting the tail of the first vector to the head of the second vector. (Memorise this, it is important to know which head touches which tail) \textbf{(INSERT figure with resultant vector marked)} Vector addition is commutative, adding the first vector to the second will give the same result as adding the second vector to the first. \textbf{(INSERT two figures, one showing A + B and the other showing B + A)} There exists a relation between the magnitudes $|\vec{A}|$, $|\vec{B}|$ and $|\vec{A}+\vec{B}|$. Given the angle between the vectors to be $\theta$, the vector law of addition states $$|\vec{A} + \vec{B}|^2 = |\vec{A}|^2 + |\vec{B}|^2 + 2|\vec{A}||\vec{B}|\cos{\theta}$$ The angle between two vectors is measured as an undirected angle keeping the tails of both the vectors together. Note that undirected angle means it lies in range $[0\degree,180\degree]$. Also we keep tails together, unlike when adding vectors when we place the vectors tail-to-head. \textbf{INSERT two figures, one head to tail and one tail to tail with theta marked in both} \section{Scalar multiplication} A vector can be multiplied by a scalar to obtain another vector in the same/opposite direction. For instance $2\vec{A}$ has twice the magnitude and the same direction as $A$. $-1\times\vec{A} = -\vec{A}$ has the same magnitude of $\vec{A}$ but the opposite direction. \textbf{(INSERT relevant figure)} This also provides the basis for vector subtraction. $\vec{A} - \vec{B} = \vec{A} + (-\vec{B})$ To subtract $\vec{B}$ we first reverse its direction to obtain $-\vec{B}$, then add this to $\vec{A}$ vectorially. Q. Prove distributivity of scalar multiplication over vector addition $$k(\vec{A} + \vec{B}) = k\vec{A} + k\vec{B}$$ A. We could try using the graphical approach (draw vectors as arrows) or notation approach (write vectors in component form). In this case, we will be able to prove this very easily using graphical approach \textbf{(INSERT relevant figure)} \section{Dot product} The previous operation involved taking a scalar and vector to produce a new vector. What about a multiplication that takes two vectors as input? Two such operators exist, one is the dot product that returns a scalar and the other is the cross product that returns a vector. The dot product is given by $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta$$ where $\theta$ is the (undirected) angle between the vectors. Note that this means given fixed magnitudes $A$ and $B$, the maximum value of $\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}$ is $AB$, attained when $\theta = 0\degree$ (vectors are parallel whereas the minimum value of $\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}$ is $-AB$, attained when $\theta = 180\degree$. Q. $$\vec{A} = 4\hat{i} - 2\hat{j} + 3\hat{k}$$ $$|\vec{B}| = 13$$ The angle between the vectors $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$ is $\frac\pi6$ Find $\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}$ A. $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta$$ $B$ and $\theta$ are known, we just need to find $A$ $$A = \sqrt{4^2 + (-2)^2 + 3^2} = \sqrt{29}$$ $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = \sqrt{29} \times 13 \times \cos{\frac{\pi}{6}} = \frac{13\sqrt{29}}{2}$$ Q. Vectors $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$ are shown in the figure. $B = 10$ is known. $A$ is not given, however the component of $\vec{A}$ parallel to $\vec{B}$ is given, its magnitude is $5$. Find $\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}$ \textbf{(INSERT figure with A parallel marked)} A. $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta$$ Looking at the figure, we can figure out that the magnitude of the parallel component (given by length of the vector) is $A\cos\theta$ So $A\cos\theta = 5$ $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta = 10\times5 = 50$$ This gives us a useful result: $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta = AB_\parallel = A_\parallel B$$ Q. Is $\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = \vec{B}\cdot\vec{A}$ always true? A. $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = AB\cos\theta_1$$ $$\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B} = BA\cos\theta_2$$ Clearly $\theta_1 = \theta_2$ since they both refer to the same angle Yes, dot product is commutative. Q. What about $\vec{A}\cdot(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{C}) = (\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B})\cdot\vec{C}$ A. Dot product of two vectors is a scalar. Taking a dot product of this scalar with a third vector is meaningless, since dot product is an operation that only takes two vectors as input. If the question was $\vec{A}(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{C}) = (\vec{A}\cdot\vec{B})\vec{C}$, then this is a false result because this is equivalent to $k_1\vec{A} = k_2\vec{B}$ where $k_1 = \vec{B}\cdot\vec{C}$ and $k_2 = \vec{A}\cdot\vec{B}$ are scalars. This will not hold true if $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$ are in different directions. Distributivity of dot product over addition (and subtraction) $$(\vec{A} + \vec{B}) \cdot \vec{C} = \vec{A} \cdot \vec{C} + \vec{B} \cdot\vec{C}$$ Proving it using the $AB\cos\theta$ will require a result from 3d geometry, so we will not prove it here. Q. Find $(2\hat{i}+3\hat{j}+4\hat{k})\cdot(-\hat{i}-\hat{j}-2\hat{k})$ A. We can now solve this using distributivity law repeatedly. $$(2\hat{i}+3\hat{j}+4\hat{k})\cdot(-\hat{i}-\hat{j}-2\hat{k})$$ $$= 2\hat{i} \cdot (-\hat{i}-\hat{j}-2\hat{k}) + 3\hat{j} \cdot (-\hat{i}-\hat{j}-2\hat{k}) -2\hat{k} \cdot (-\hat{i}-\hat{j}-2\hat{k})$$ $$= (-2\hat{i}\cdot\hat{i} -2\hat{i}\cdot\hat{j} +4\hat{i}\cdot\hat{k}) + (-3\hat{j}\cdot\hat{i} + \ldots) + (-2\hat{k}\cdot\hat{i} + \ldots)$$ We just need to figure out the products $\hat{i}\cdot\hat{i}$, $\hat{i}\cdot\hat{j}$, and so on. Some thinking will tell you $\hat{i}\cdot\hat{i} = |\hat{i}||\hat{i}|\cos\theta = 1\times1\times\cos0 = 1$ Similarly $\hat{i}\cdot\hat{j} = |\hat{i}||\hat{j}|\cos\theta = 1\times1\times\cos\frac\pi2 = 0$ In general, multiplying a unit vector with itself will give $1$ whereas multiplying two perpendicular unit vectors will give $0$. This means out of the $9$ terms we had, $6$ will be $0$ and $3$ will be $1$ So the answer is $-2\hat{i}\cdot\hat{i} -3\hat{j}\cdot\hat{j} +4\hat{k}\cdot\hat{k} = -2-3+4 = -1$ In general this gives us a very simple formula for dot product, $$(a_1\hat{i} + a_2\hat{j} + a_3\hat{k}) \cdot (b_1\hat{i} + b_2\hat{j} + b_3\hat{k}) = a_1b_1 + a_2b_2 +a_3b_3$$ \section{Cross product} \textbf{(Bored of this, INCOMPLETE)} \section{Which quantities are vectors?} This section will use terms defined later in the 11th and 12th syllabi, so you could skip it and star-mark it for later. Remember, a quantity can be represented by a vector if it has magnitude, direction and follows the vector law of addition. Q. Is current a vector? A. Current follows the kirchoff's law of addition. Given currents $I_1$ and $I_2$ entering a node, and $I_3$ exiting a node, we have $I_3 = I_1 + I_2$. The quantity of resultant current $I_3$ is independent of the direction of the incoming current. As such it makes sense to represent current using a signed scalar (sign indicates forward or backward flow) rather than $3$ components. \textbf{(INSERT figure)} Q. Is $\frac{d\vec{a}}{db}$ a vector? A. $$\frac{d\vec{a}}{db} = \lim_{\Delta b \to 0} \frac{\Delta\vec{a}}{\Delta b} = \lim_{b_2 \to b_1} \frac{\vec{a}_2-\vec{a}_1}{b_2-b_1}$$ $\vec a_2 - \vec a_1$ is a vector, $b_2 - b_1$ is a scalar. Dividing a vector by a scalar gives a vector. Applying a limit does not change the vector/scalar property of a quantity. (Why?) Hence, yes, $\frac{d\vec{a}}{db}$ is a vector Q. If $\frac d {db}$ is replaced by $\frac {\partial} {\partial b}$ in the previous question? A. Yes, still a vector. The way you take a limit does not change the vector nature nature or dimensions of the quantity, just like dividing a distance by time will always give a quantity with dimensions of speed, no matter how big or small the distance or time interval is. As a rule of thumb, $\Delta a$ and $\partial a$ have the same dimensions and vector/scalar nature as $a$ since they are just a subtraction between two close values of $a$ Q. To a directed angle $\theta$, we associate a vector $\theta \hat{n}$ where the direction of $\hat{n}$ is perpendicular to the plane of the angle and is given by taking the cross product of the two rays that formed the angle. As per this definition, is angle a vector? A. If all angles are in the same plane, angles add and subtract nicely, giving the impression that angles might be vectors. However we should be able to add angles in different planes also. (Angles in same plane have parallel/anti-parallel $\hat n$, angles in different planes have different $\hat n$) \textbf{(INSERT figure with three rays in 3d emerging from a common point with pairwise angles marked)} In general, 3d geometry shows that angles cannot be added in 3d. As a special example, take this: \textbf{(INSERT figure similar to previous with all 3 angles 90)} Adding two $90\degree$ angles with perpendicular $\hat n$ gives another $90\degree$ angle in a third, perpendicular direction. This is similar to saying $\hat i + \hat j = \hat k$ and cannot be justified vectorially. Q. What about $\partial \Theta$? What about $\omega = \frac {d\Theta} {dt}$ A. Infinitesimal angles can indeed be added vectorially as long as the result is still an infinitesimal (Proof not mentioned). Hence $\partial \Theta$ and $\vec\omega = \frac {d\Theta} {dt}$ can be considered as vectors when needed. Q. Is surface area a vector? As usual we define $\vec A = A \hat n$ where $\hat n$ is perpendicular to the area. A. First thing to consider is that areas can be on flat surfaces or curved (non-flat) surfaces. \textbf{(INSERT figure)} The sum of two non-parallel flat surfaces will essentially give a non-flat surface. \textbf{(INSERT figure of square + square giving a new shape with two joint squares in different planes)} There is no obvious way of converting this non-flat surface area into a flat area. We can take its projection on a plane (as shown in figure) or we can find its magnitude (which is simply the sum of individual areas) but we can't represent the entire surface area in a more simple form. As such we will have to assume this weird shape as the simplest representation. \textbf{(INSERT projection)} Now coming to the question of whether area should be considered as a vector, our litmus test is the vector law of addition. If the vector formed by vector addition has real life significance and would represent what we would otherwise imagine to be the adddition two areas, then area is a vector. We will take the following two flat areas that share a common edge of length $h$. The areas are $a\times h$ and $b\times h$ and they make an angle $\theta$ with each other. \textbf{(INSERT figure of triangle with coords (-x1,0), (0,h) and (x2,0) with relevant features marked)} Assuming axes as shown in the figure, $$\vec A_1 = A_1 \hat A_1 $$ $$A_1 = ah$$ $$\hat A_1 = - \sin\theta_1 \hat i + \cos\theta_1 \hat j $$ $$\vec A_2 = A_2 \hat A_2 $$ $$A_2 = bh$$ $$\hat A_2 = \sin\theta_2 \hat i + \cos\theta_2 \hat j $$ But $$\sin\theta_1 = \frac h a$$ $$\cos\theta_1 = \frac {x_1} a$$ $$\sin\theta_2 = \frac h b$$ $$\cos\theta_2 = \frac {x_2} b$$ On solving we get $$\vec A_1 + \vec A_2 = h(x_1+x_2) \hat j$$ which is nothing but the area vector of the rectangle obtained by stretching the third side of the triangle. Area vector does indeed seem useful. In fact, in general we can prove that for any closed surface (imagine a sphere or a cube), $$\sum \vec A = 0$$ If the surface is curved, we will split into infinitely many small areas, each having their own vector. The sum of these will then add to zero. $$\oint\vec{dA} = 0$$ This is a very important result, and will be helpful in electrostatics. The three surfaces of the triangle do not together form a closed surface in 3d, but we can close it using two identical triangles whose vectors add up to zero. \textbf{(INSERT relevant figure)} Every open surface can be closed by a complementary surface, and both of these area vectors will have same magnitude and opposite directions. Using this we can find the area vector of complicated surfaces easily. \textbf{(INSERT figure of two open surfaces forming a closed surface)} The only downside of this area representation is that it does not tell you the total surface area of your original area, and the magnitude of total area of a curved area usually has no simply intuitive picture. We also have a similar result in 2 dimensions (not as useful) for closed loops $$\oint dl \hat n = 0$$ \textbf{(INSERT figure)} Q. Prove $\oint dl \hat n = 0$ using $\oint \vec {dA} = 0$ A. Fairly straightforward now that we've already seen an example of exactly this. The triangle example we took was pretty much a 2d example which we then stretched to 3d. Lastly we closed both sides to obtain a closed surface. We can do the same here. Consider an arbitrary closed loop and stretch it by $h$ to the third dimension. Close it using two parallel faces. $$\oint \vec {dA} = \left(\oint \vec {dA}_{loop}\right) + \vec A_{face1} + \vec A_{face2}$$ $$\vec A_{face1} = A \hat n_1$$ $$\vec A_{face2} = - A \hat n_1$$ Each differential area element is nothing but a rectangle with dimensions $dl \times h$ $$\vec {dA}_{loop} = h dl \hat n$$ Putting it all together, our proof is complete. \textbf{(MORE EXAMPLES, maybe)} \chapter{Calculus} Calculus is the mathematical study of continuous change, basically how a change in one variable causes a change in another related variable. Calculus that you will study can largely be separated in differential calculus and integral calculus \section{Differential calculus} \subsection{Introduction and basic rules} Q. Suppose we have the function $y=x^2$. At $(1,1)$ we draw the tangent of the curve and it intersects the x axis. Find the coordinates of the point at which it intersects the x axis. A. Without prior background, this is a hard problem to solve. Nevertheless it has been given with the express purpose of improving the way you think. Spend a couple of minutes if you like, before looking at the solution. First question that comes to mind - what is a tangent? Tangent is a straight line that touches the curve at exactly one point (unlike secants which intersect at two points). Does a point have a unique tangent? Yes, generally it does. One way to imagine this is to imagine a car travelling along the curve $y=x^2$. At every point the car is pointing in a certain direction, and this direction is continuously changing. The direction the car points when it is at the point $(1,1)$ is the direction of the tangent. Now how to solve this? Note that what is important is the direction of the tangent. If I can find the direction, then using slope-point form ($y-y_1 = m(x-x_1)$), I can find the equation of the line since I already know one point on the line (which is $(1,1)$). Using this I can get the coordinates. Now how is slope expressed? Slope is basically the rate at which $y$ grows versus $x$ for a line. If $y$ grows very quickly with respect to $x$ for a given line, we say the slope is high, otherwise it is low. Coming back to the car analogy, let's try imagining which direction will the car point when it is at $(1,1)$. It will point to the next point it has to reach. What is the next point it has to reach? Though we can't define an exact next point, we can take an approximate next point to be $(1.0001,1.0001^2)$. This is the key insight that will help solve the problem. Now we know the car is at point $1$ looking at a nearby point $2$ - what is the direction in which the car is pointing? Since we have two points, we can find slope aS $$m = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1} = \frac {1.0001^2 - 1}{1.0001 - 1}$$ We can simplify this either manually, or by using the $a^2-b^2$ factorisation identity. Anything will do, I'll just show the factorisation identity for practice since it can often simplify calculations $$\frac {1.0001^2 - 1}{1.0001 - 1} = \frac {(1.0001 + 1)(1.0001 - 1)}{1.0001 - 1} = 2.0001$$ Our answer is slightly above $2$. Note that our selection of $1.0001$ as the x coordinate of the second point was arbitrary, let's try with $1.00000001 = 1 + 10^{-8}$ instead $$m = \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1} = \frac {(1 + 10^{-8})^2 - 1}{1 + 10^{-8} - 1} = \frac {(1 + 10^{-8} + 1)(1 + 10^{-8} - 1)}{1 + 10^{-8} - 1} = 2 + 10^{-8}$$ Our answer is even closer to $2$. This seems to indicate our answer might indeed be $2$. A useful thing to do at this point would be to generalise to an arbitrary $h$ as the increase in x, so our coordinates now become $(1,1)$ and $(1+h,(1+h)^2)$ Do this yourself. On solving you will get $m=2+h$ Clearly as $h$ goes to zero, $m$ goes to $2$. This is our answer and is represented as $$\frac{dy}{dx} = 2$$ which can be simply read as "D Y by D X equals two". This notation is also useful because it tells us exactly what our answer represents, a small change in $y$ divided by a small change in $x$. In general, we use $\Delta$ to represent a change, and $d$ to represent an infinitesimal change, so $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \lim_{x_2\to x_1}\frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1}$$ This can be read as "(limit as delta X tends to 0) of (delta Y by delta X)" This shows that derivative is nothing but \textbf{a ratio of infinitesimal changes}, something that should always be remembered. Q. Find $\frac{dy}{dx}$ at the point $(2,4)$ on the curve $y=x^2$ A. Try doing this yourself. Follow the exact same steps we used. You should get $4$ as the answer. Possible doubt: Should we take $(2.0001,2.0001^2)$ or $(2.0002,2.0002^2)$ as the second point? Answer to doubt: It makes no difference, the ideal method is to anyway take $(2+h,(2+h)^2)$ as the second point. If you are uncomfortable you may feel like shying away from using $h$ because I am yet to provide a solution using $h$, however this is deliberate. Being able to generalise a special case of a problem to a general case by adding variables is both easy and an essential skill to have in mathematics. Hence you should practice it without looking at the solution. Here's the solution using $h$ $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(2+h)^2 - 2^2)}{(2+h) -2} = \lim_{h\to 0} 4 + h = 4 + 0 = 4$$ Q. Let's generalise. Find slope at point $(a,a^2)$ on the curve $y=x^2$ A. $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^2 - a^2)}{(a+h) - a} = \lim_{h\to 0} 2a + h = 2a + 0 = 2a$$ Q. Find slope at point $(a,a^3)$ on the curve $y=x^3$ A. Here we can use the identity $a^3 - b^3 = (a-b)(a^2 + ab + b^2)$ to simplify $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^3 - a^3)}{(a+h) - a} = \lim_{h\to 0} (3a^2 + 3ah + h^2)$$ We simply substitute $h=0$ to obtain the answer $3a^2$ Q. Find slope of curve $y=x^n$ at point $(a,a^n)$ A. $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^n - a^n)}{(a+h) - a} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^n - a^n}h$$ Now we seem stuck. We do not know of any general identity yet for $n$ degree. A useful result is the binomial theorem which you will study extensively later on. Here's some motivation for it: $$(a+h)^2 = a^2 + 2ah + h^2$$ $$(a+h)^3 = a^3 + 3a^2h + 3ah^2 + h^3$$ $$(a+h)^4 = a^4 + 4a^3h + 6 a^2h^2 + 4ah^3 + h^4$$ When we do $\frac{(a+h)^n - a^n}h$, the subtraction of $a^n$ cancels the first term in the expansion of $(a+h)^n$. The second term is of the form $na^?h^?$ (question marks indicate powers) which will get divided by $h$. Similarly all the terms will get divided by $h$ The only useful term is the second term. Why? Because the terms are strictly decreasing. We have $h << a$ which means reducing the power of $a$ by $1$ and putting $h$ instead is reducing our term to a negligible value. For example, consider $2,2h,2h^2,\ldots$ The only useful term is $2$ when we apply the limit $h\to 0$. So we only need to find the second term of the binomial expansion. $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^2 - a^2}h = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a^2+2ah + h^2) - a^2}h = \lim_{h\to 0}{2a + h} = 2a$$ $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^3 - a^3}h = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a^3+3a^2h + 3ah^2 + h^3) - a^3}h = \lim_{h\to 0}{3a^2 + h(\ldots)} = 3a^2$$ $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a+h)^4 - a^4}h = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(a^4+4a^3h + 6a^2h^2 +\ldots) - a^4}h = \lim_{h\to 0}{4a^3 + h(\ldots)} = 4a^3$$ Some pattern matching will tell you that this term is nothing but $n a^{n-1}h$. On dividing by $h$ we will obtain the result $na^{n-1}$ which is our first major result in calculus $$\frac{d}{dx} x^n = nx^{n-1}$$ Instead of using another variable $a$, it is common to denote the derivative in terms of $x$ itself. This also provides for a new meaning of the derivative function. So far we were considering derivative at a point, where our input was a function and a point, and our output was a value. Here, however, our input is a function and our output is also a function, a function to which if you input the point, you'll get a value as input. Hence we can say that the derivative function is an example of a function that returns a function as output. An easy way of remembering the above formula is, first take the power of the original term and place it on the side, then take the power and reduce it by $1$. For instance if we have to find the derivative of $x^18$, we place $18$ on the side of $x^{18-1}$ to obtain $18x^17$ While in maths we need to be careful about things such as whether a function is differentiable or invertible, it is common in physics to blindly assume that functions are: \begin{itemize} \item functions - meaning that for each $x$ in domain (in physics, domain = region of interest), there exists one and exactly one $f(x)$. A general equation between multiple variables that may not satisfy this property is called a relation. \item continuous throughout the domain - meaning that a small change in $x$ produces a small change in $f(x)$. This also means that our function can be plotted on paper without lifting our pen as the function doesn't "jump" \item differentiable throughout domain - meaning that the derivative at every point exists and is unique. This will be covered better in maths \item infinitely differentiable - meaning that the derivatives can be further differentiated to obtain rate of change of derivatives (we will come to this soon) \item invertible - meaning that if $y$ is a function of $x$, then $x$ is also a function of $y$. \end{itemize} These are not always good assumptions, a rigorous method of solving would test for all these before proceeding. Neverthless, when solving physics, we tend to get used to certain "nice" categories of functions that satisfy all the above properties. JEE physics rarely requires calculus on functions that aren't "nice", though you should be thorough with them anyways from a JEE maths point of view. Go slow, if you haven't understood any of what we have done so far, go back and read it a couple more times before proceeding. Q. Find $\frac {d}{dx}(x^4 - 2x^2 + 1)$ A. Start with the definition of derivative. Ratio of a small change in a function of $x$, which is $f(x)$, divided by the corresponding small change in $x$ $$\frac{df(x)}{dx} = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{(x+h) - (h)}$$ $$ = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{[(x+h)^4 - 2(x+h)^2 + 1] - [x^4 - 2x^2 + 1]}{h}$$ Rearranging terms, $$ = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{[(x+h)^4 - x^4] - [2(x+h)^2 - 2x^2] + [1-1]}{h}$$ $$ = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^4 - x^4}{h} - \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{2(x+h)^2 - 2x^2}{h}$$ $$ = \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^4 - x^4}{h} - 2 \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h}$$ But $\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^4 - x^4}{h} = \frac{d}{dx}x^4 = 4x^3$ And $\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^2 - x^2}{h} = \frac{d}{dx}x^2 = 2x$ Hence we get our result $$ = 4x^3 -2(2x) = 4x^3 - 4x$$ Let's try another one for practice \textbf{(INSERT sample question and answer on polynomial differentiation)} We have observed a lot of useful results from this. First result: $$\frac{d}{dx}(f(x) + g(x)) = \frac{d}{dx}f(x) + \frac{d}{dx}g(x)$$ If two functions are being added, we can find their individual derivatives and then add them to obtain the derivative of the original function. Next result: $$\frac{d}{dx} cf(x) = c\frac{d}{dx}f(x)$$ If we have a constant (such as $2$, $3$, $\pi$) multiplied to a function, we can find the total derivative by multiplying the constant to the derivative of the inner function. Another result: $$\frac{d}{dx} c = 0$$ Derivative of a constant is zero (what is a constant again?). This makes sense as the derivative is the ratio of infinitesimal changes, and a change in the value of $x$ will not result in a change in the value of $f(x)$ if $f(x)$ is a constant. Q. Find the derivative of $\sin{x}$ A. We start with the definition of derivative. $$\frac{d}{dx} \sin{x} = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{\sin{(x+h)} - \sin{x}}{h}$$ We can now use the identity $\sin{A+B} = \sin{A}\cos{B} + \cos{A}\sin{B}$ $$= \lim_{h\to0}\frac{\sin{x}\cos{h} + \cos{x}\sin{h} - \sin{x}}{h}$$ $$= \lim_{h\to0} \sin{x}(\frac{1 - \cos{h}}{h}) + \cos{x}(\frac{\sin{h}}{h})$$ We're stuck. If we use some properties of the theory of limits we can easily solve this bit. More specifically, $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{1 - \cos{h}}{h} = 0$$ $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\sin{h}}{h} = 1$$ Substituting these gives $$\frac{d}{dx} \sin{x} = \cos{x}$$ Just to reiterate, what does this mean? A derivative is a ratio of changes, so if we make a small change in the value of $x$ and observe the corresponding small change in $\sin{x}$, the ratio of these changes is $\cos{x}$. It also means that the slope of the graph $y=\sin{x}$ at a point $(a,\sin{a})$ will be $\cos{a}$, so $\tan{\theta} = \cos{a}$. This may by now be obvious to you, but if not, this is a friendly reminder. But the proof must have felt like cheating, since we magically brought up some results to prove it. Let's try proving them. Q. Prove $\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\sin{h}}{h} = 1$ A. We need to prove that for small values of $h$, $\sin{h}$ becomes arbitrarily close to $h$. We can plug in smaller and smaller values of $h$ and find that $\frac{\sin{h}}{h}$ does indeed get closer to $1$. Try substituting the values $h=0.1$, $h=0.001$ and $h=0.00000001$ in a calculator. Or if that doesn't please you, find these values by plotting angles on a unit circle (as per the definition of $\sin{x}$) But this merely observation, does that count as a formal proof? Since we know that $\sin{x}$ is continuous and it doesn't change rapidly at $x=0$ (the derivative of $\sin{x}$ is not infinite), we can indeed say the results hold true. A more rigorous proof than this is out of the scope of this textbook. As a rule of thumb, just remember that as $h\to0$ $$\sin{h} \approx h$$ $$\cos{h} \approx 1-\frac{h^2}{2}$$ Q. Prove that $\frac{d}{dx}\cos{x} = -\sin{x}$ A. Left as a exercise. The proof is almost identical to the proof of the derivative of $\sin{x}$, so take hints from there Q. Find the derivatives of the following if possible: (i) $e^\pi x^{\pi-e}$ (ii) $(\sin{x}) x^4$ (iii) $x^{2x}$ A. (i) $e^\pi$ is a constant, we can find the derivative of the inner function and multiply it with this constant. The inner function is $x^{\pi - e}$ What is the derivative of the inner function? This is of the form $x^n$. Here $n$ is not a natural number but it doesn't matter, the result we proved for natural number powers of $x$ also holds for real number powers due to the binomial theorem for real number powers (will be taught later in maths). So we find $nx^{n-1}$ which is $(\pi - e)x^{\pi - e -1}$ Multiplying them, we get $e^\pi(\pi - e)x^{\pi - e -1}$ (ii) One may feel like assuming $\sin{x}$ to be a constant and keeping it aside as we have done before. But no, $\sin{x}$ is not a constant, it is a function itself. We are yet to learn how to differentiate the product of two functions, once we do, then we will be able to solve this. (iii) Does this fit the formula $x^n$? No because $n$ must be a constant but we have a function in the power of $x$. There is a method to differentiate functions of the form $f(x)^{g(x)}$ but we will not cover it here \subsection{Product rule} How to differentiate the product of two functions? More specifically, we want to find $$\frac{d}{dx}{f(x)g(x)} = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x+h)g(x+h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}$$ We also know $$f'(x) = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}$$ $$g'(x) = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{g(x+h) - g(x)}{h}$$ This means $$f(x+h) \approx f(x) + hf'(x)$$ $$g(x+h) \approx f(x) + hg'(x)$$ Which makes sense because $f(x+h)$ should be equal to original $f(x)$ plus the change in $f(x)$. And the change in $f(x)$ is the ratio of changes (derivative) multiplied by the change in $x$ (which is h) Substitute this into our original problem $$\frac{d}{dx}{f(x)g(x)} = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x+h)g(x+h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}$$ $$ = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{(f(x) + hf'(x))(g(x) + hg'(x)) - f(x)g(x)}{h}$$ On opening the bracket and simplifying $$ = f'(x)g(x) + g'(x)f(x) + \lim_{h\to0}hf'(x)g'(x)$$ The last term is simply zero due to leftover $h$ (why? do you remember) and we get the result $$(f(x)g(x))' = f'(x)g(x) + g'(x)f(x)$$ I've used quote mark (') to denote derivative as it is neater. To make it even neater, don't write $x$ $$(fg)' = fg' + gf'$$ How to remember: \begin{itemize} \item Differentiate the first function, multiply with the second function. \item Differentiate the second function, multiply with the first function. \item Add both to obtain the derivative of the product of the functions. \end{itemize} Q. Find $[(x^2 + 3x + 2)(2x^2 - x + 14)]'$ A. $$[(x^2 + 3x + 2)(2x^2 - x + 14)]'$$ $$ = [x^2 + 3x + 2]'[2x^2 - x + 14] + [x^2 + 3x + 2][2x^2 - x + 14]'$$ $$ = [2x + 3][2x^2 - x + 14] + [x^2 + 3x + 2][4x - 1]$$ Open brackets and simplify to obtain a cubic equation We could have also opened brackets first to obtain a biquadratic polynomial and then differentiated. This was just a bit faster. Q. Find $[(x^2 + 3x + 2)(2\sin^2{x} - \sin{x} + 14)]'$ A. $$ = [x^2 + 3x + 2]'[2\sin^2{x} - \sin{x} + 14] + [x^2 + 3x + 2][2\sin^2{x} - \sin{x} + 14]'$$ $$ = [2x + 3][2\sin^2{x} - \sin{x} + 14] + [x^2 + 3x + 2][2(\sin^2{x})' - \cos{x}]$$ Alas, we do not know how to differentiate $\sin^2{x}$. The answer is not $\cos^2{x}$ if you're guessing that, we have not proved any general property that says $(f^2)' = (f')^2$ We can still apply a trick here to get the answer. $\sin^2{x} = \sin{x}\sin{x}$ Now that we have the product of two functions whose derivatives we know, we can differentiate $\sin^2{x}$ $$(\sin^2{x})' = (\sin{x}\sin{x})' = \sin{x}(\sin{x})' + (\sin{x})'\sin{x} = 2\sin{x}\cos{x}$$ We can substitute this back into our working to obtain the final answer. \subsection{Chain rule} Q. Find a function we do not know to differentiate yet A. $\frac{\sin{x}}{x}$ is an example. We do not know how to find $(\frac f g)'$ in terms of $f'$ and $g'$ $\sin{\sin{x}}$ is another example. We do not know how to differentiate a function of a function $$f(g(x)) = ?$$ The chain rule will address the second problem, and by doing so it will address the first one too. Before we start with the result and proof, I hope you can see the difference between $fg = f(x)\times g(x)$ and $fog = f(g(x)$. At this point, it becomes helpful to think of functions as something that take input and return output (because that's what they essentially are). $f(x)g(x)$ means taking a value $x$, inputting it to both $f$ and $g$, getting the two distinct outputs and finding their product. $f(g(x))$ means taking a value $x$, inputting it to $g$, getting the output, sending that output as input to $f$, and then getting the output. \textbf{INSERT figure of functions as boxes with input and output arrows. Illustrate fg and fog} As a side note, multiplication, addition, subtraction, etc too are functions, just a different type of function you're not used to. So far you've dealt with functions of the form $f(x)$, meaning they take one input and give one input. These are called unary functions. Functions like addition take two inputs and return one input, and are called binary functions (not to be confused with the base-2 number system). We can write a general binary function as $f(x,y)$. Using such a notation, we can also write maths as follows $$ 3 + 4 = +(3,4) = 7$$ Here we have a function of the form $f(x,y)$. $f$ is the addition operation $+$, and $3$ and $4$ are the inputs $x$ and $y$. Another example: $$\sin{(x + 3)} + \sin{x} + 3 = +((\sin{(x+3)}),\sin{(x)},3) = +((\sin{(+(x,3))}),\sin{(x)},3)$$ \textbf{INSERT boxes figure} Here the outer addition is taking three inputs. How is that possible? We can add pairwise as follows $$+(x_1,x_2,x_3) = +(+(x_1,x_2),x_3)$$ $$+(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,\ldots x_n) = +(+(\ldots+(+(+(x_1,x_2),x_3),x_4),\ldots ,x_n)$$ \textbf{(INSERT boxes figure)} So to be very pedantic, we can write the above function as $$+(+((\sin{(+(x,3))}),\sin{(x)}),3)$$ \textbf{INSERT boxes figure} Now that we are able to understand functions as boxes, and deeply understand what $f(g(x))$ means, let's try finding its derivative $$[f(g(x))]' = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(g(x+h)) - f(g(x))}{h}$$ We also know $$[f(x)]' = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h}$$ $$[g(x)]' = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{g(x+h) - g(x)}{h}$$ Using the following approximations (which we used when proving product rule) will make the proof easier (at the cost of rigour) $$f(x+h) \approx f(x) + hf'(x)$$ $$g(x+h) \approx g(x) + hg'(x)$$ $$[f(g(x))]' = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(g(x+h)) - f(g(x))}{h}$$ $$ \approx \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(g(x) + hg'(x)) - f(g(x))}{h}$$ Now inside $f$ we have $g(x)$ which is a non-negligible quantity and $hg'(x+h)$ which is a small quantity with size of order $h$. Let's assume the following variables to make things simple. $$X = g(x)$$ $$H = hg'(x)$$ So we have $$ \approx \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(X + H) - f(g(x))}{h}$$ $$ \approx \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(X) + Hf'(X) - f(g(x))}{h}$$ Substituting back the values of $X$ and $H$ $$ \approx \lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(g(x)) + hg'(x)f'(g(x)) -f(g(x))}{h}$$ $$ = \lim_{h\to0}\frac{hg'(x)f'(g(x))}{h}$$ $$ = f'(g(x))g'(x)$$ This is our result. Learning to use this result is important and will come only with practice. Q. Differentiate $\sin{(x^2)}$ A. We have a function of the form $f(g(x))$ where $f(x) = \sin{x}$ and $g(x) = x^2$ If you haven't understood yet, take a moment to understand why have we taken $f(x) = \sin{x}$ and not $f(x) = \sin{x^2}$ The reason is simply that if we take $f(x) = \sin{x^2}$, then our function which we have differentiate is of the form $f(x)$ and not $f(g(x))$ which is what we need. Our outer function is $\sin$ and our inner function is squaring. It also becomes useful to think of functions in terms of what they do and not what they "do" on. When we write $f(x) = \sin(x)$, $x$ is just a dummy variables that has no actual meaning. It could just as well have been $f(y) = \sin{y}$ or $f(2a+b) = \sin{(2a+b)}$ or $f(g(x)) = \sin{(g(x)}$. The only thing important about $f$ is that it takes the $\sin$ of whatever input it gets. Similarly $g$ outputs the square of whatever input it gets. The result should be $f'(g(x))g'(x)$ $$f'(x) = \cos{x}$$ By simple substitution $$f'(g(x)) = \cos{(g(x))} = \cos{(x^2)}$$ $$g'(x) = 2x$$ Therefore $$(\sin{(x^2)})' = 2x\cos{(x^2)}$$ Q. Find the following (i) $(\sin{4x})'$ (ii) $(\sin^2{x})'$ A. (i) $f(g(x)) = \sin{4x}$ The obvious choices for $f$ and $g$ are $$f(x) = \sin{x}$$ $$g(x) = 4x$$ $$f'(x) = \cos{x}$$ $$f'(g(x)) = \cos{4x}$$ $$g'(x) = 4$$ $$(f(g(x)))' = f'(g(x)) g'(x) = 4\cos{x}$$ (ii) Note that here the outer function is squaring and the inner function is $\sin$. DIY Explicitly writing $f$ and $g$ every time is an effort, with practice we will learn how to write the derivative directly. A simple way to remember is "derivative of outer with inner as input. Then derivative of inner" Q. Find $(\sin{(\cos{(\sin{x})})})'$ A. We start from the outermost function and work our way inwards. Our outermost function is $\sin$, its derivative is $\cos$. We now give whatever was inside as input (we had $(\cos{(\sin{x})})$ inside) to obtain $\cos{(\cos{(\sin{x})})}$ Then we multiply this with the derivative of what was inside $$\cos{(\cos{(\sin{x})})} (\cos{(\sin{x})})'$$ We need to apply chain rule a second time to obtain the derivative of this second function. We focus only on this task, which is finding $(\cos{(\sin{x})})'$. Now our outer function is $\cos$ whose derivative is $-\sin$. We again give whatever was inside as input (we had $\sin{x}$ inside) to obtain $-\sin{(\sin{x})}$ Then we multiply this with this with the derivative of what was inside to obtain $$\cos{(\cos{(\sin{x})})} (-\sin{(\sin{x})})(\sin{x})'$$ Lastly we need the derivative of $\sin{x}$ which we already know. This gives the following as answer. $$ - \cos{(\cos{(\sin{x})})} \cdot \sin{(\sin{x})} \cdot \cos{x}$$ Convince yourself that this is the simplest form in which this answer can be expressed. For instance, we can't merge any terms because composite functions ($f(g(x))$) and multiplying functions ($f(x)g(x)$) are two different things. \subsection{Quotient rule} Q. Find $(\frac fg)'$ in terms of $f'$ and $g'$ A. We do not yet have a "division rule" - a way to differentiate functions composed using the division ($/$) operator. How to proceed? We know to differentiate products of functions and functions with exponents. We can perform a division ($\frac f g$) using multiplication and a $-1$ exponent to find the inverse. $$\frac f g = f \cdot g^{-1}$$ Now we can differentiate it $$(\frac f g)' = (f \cdot g^{-1})'$$ Outer function is multiplication $$(\frac f g)' = f\cdot (g^{-1})' + f'\cdot g^{-1}$$ $f'$ is assumed to be known. $(g^{-1})'$ is unknown but can be simplified using our exponent rule ($(x^n)' = nx^{(n-1)}$). $$(g^{-1})' = -1 \cdot g^{-2} \cdot g'$$ Why have we multiplied $g'$ at the end? We have done so because we are differentiating with respect to $x$, not $g$, and as per chain rule $g$ is a function of $x$ and still needs to be differentiated. $$\frac{d(g^{-1})}{dg} = -g^{-2}$$ $$\frac{d(g^{-1})}{dx} = -g^{-2}g'$$ (where $g' = \frac{dg}{dx}$) Putting it all together gives $$(\frac f g)' = f\cdot (g^{-1})' + f'\cdot g^{-1} = -\frac{fg'}{g^2} +\frac{f'}{g}$$ $$(\frac f g)' = \frac{gf' - fg'}{g^2}$$ This is the "quotient rule" and can be memorised. \textbf{INSERT more solved examples of chain rule} By now you should be confident that, given a function in one variable (say $x$), if the following properties are followed, you should be able to differentiate it: \begin{itemize} \item It is composed of base functions such as polynomials, trigonometric functions ($\sin$, $\cos$, etc) \item The base functions are joined by the operators $+$, $-$, $*$, $/$, $\hat{}$ (with constant exponent, variable exponent will be taught later) \item The derivatives of all the base functions are known \end{itemize} \subsection{Variables and equations} So far we have only differentiated explicit functions of $x$. Given $f$, we found $\frac{df}{dx}$ and called this $f'$ $$\frac{df}{dx} = f'$$ Or $$\frac{df(x)}{dx} = f'(x)$$ To make things convenient, we can also use the following notation $$df = f' dx$$ Or $$df(x) = f'(x) dx$$ So we are simply saying that a small change in $f(x)$ is the product of the derivative and the small change in $x$. Seems pretty straight forward, but is it really? Also how is this useful? Firstly, from a rigorous mathematical perspective, this is not straightforward because $df(x) = f'(x) dx$ does not mean $\lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \Delta f(x) = f'(x) \lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \Delta x$. If you have not done theory of limits, you may skip this bit. If you have, you would notice that the right hand side of the equation is always zero independent of the nature of $f$. Why? Because $\lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \Delta x = 0$ by the property of limits. Therefore, what we actually mean when we say $df(x) = f'(x) dx$ is actually $\frac{df(x)}{dx} = f'(x)$ and we are not actually allowed to take the denominator to the other side from a limits point of view, we do it only for convenience. $$\frac{df(x)}{dx} = f'(x) \iff \lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\Delta f(x)}{\Delta x} = f'(x) \iff df(x) = f'(x) dx$$ $$\not\iff \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \Delta f(x) = f'(x) \lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \Delta x$$ Now how is this useful? Why use just $da$ or just $db$ instead of always using both the $d$s together like $\frac{da}{db}$? Because it makes calculations convenient when dealing with equations rather than functions. Here's an example Q. $$y^2 + 1 = x^3$$ Find $\frac{dy}{dx}$ A. First and most obvious method would be to write $y$ explicitly as a function of $x$ before differentiating. So we'll get $$y = \sqrt{x^3 -1}$$ Then we can differentiate and apply chain rule to get $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac12 (x^3 - 1)^{-\frac{1}{2}} 3x^2 = \frac{-3x^2}{2\sqrt{x^3 -1}}$$ That is indeed the answer. Here's another method of doing it that should also give the same result. $$d(y^2 + 1) = d(x^3)$$ If $a=b$ then a small change in $a$ should equal a small change in $b$ $$LHS = d(y^2 + 1) = 2ydy$$ (Explanation: $\frac{d(y^2 + 1)}{dy} = 2y$) $$RHS = d(x^3) = 3x^2 dx$$ (Explanation: $\frac{d(x^3)}{dx} = 3x^2$) $$2ydy = 3x^2 dx$$ $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{3x^2}{2y}$$ If needed, we can now find $y$ explicitly in terms of $x$ and substitute it in the denominator. Isn't this method neater? If you're still not convinced, what about an equation where it is not possible to find one variable in terms of the other. Q. $$y^3 + 2y + 3 = x^3 - x$$ Find $\frac{dy}{dx}$ when $x=2$ A. $$d(y^3 + 2y + 3) = d(x^3 - x)$$ $$3y^2dy + 2dy + 0 = 3x^2 dx - dx$$ $$(3y^2 + 2)dy = 3x^2dx$$ $$\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{3x^2}{3y^2 + 2}$$ So to find $\frac{dy}{dx}$ at a given point, we can just plug in the values of $x$ and $y$ at that point. We are given $x=2$, but we do not know the value of $y$. However we can find it using the value of $x$. Note that the point at which we are finding $\frac{dy}{dx}$ also lies on the curve hence the equation must hold true at that point. $$y^3 + 2y + 3 = 2^3 - 2$$ $$y^3 + 2y - 3 = 0$$ We need to find the roots of this cubic equation. While there exists a formula for the same, it is lengthy and not worth memorising. Use hit and trial to obtain $y=1$ as a solution, then factorise. $$(y-1)(y^2 + y + 3) = 0$$ Now to find the roots of $y^2 + y + 3$. we can use quadratic formula. $D = b^2 - 4ac = (1)^2 - 4(1)(3) < 0$. $D$ is negative hence the roots are complex. In this instance we can neglect them, since JEE usually does not expect us to do calculus with complex roots. We can also do this with multiple variables. Q. $$2a^3 = b^2 + c^4$$ Find $\frac{dc}{da}$ at (a=1,b=1) if it is known that $\frac{da}{db} = 4$ at this point A. $$d(2a^3) = d(b^2) + d(c^4)$$ $$6a^2 da = 2b db + 4c^3 dc$$ Now we are given that $\frac{da}{db} = 4$. Let's divide the equation by $db$ to use this information $$6a^2 \frac{da}{db} = 2b + 4c^3 \frac{dc}{db}$$ Now substitute the values at the known point. $$6(1)^2 (4) = 2(1) + 4c^3 \frac{dc}{db}$$ Let's find $c$ at the given point ($a=1,b=1$) $$2a^3 = b^2 + c^4$$ $$2(1)^3 = (1)^2 + c^4$$ $$c^4 = 1$$ $$c = 1,-1$$ Now substitute $$6(1)^2 (4) = 2(1) + 4c^3 \frac{dc}{db}$$ $$\frac{dc}{db} = \pm \frac{22}{4}$$ Now we can use a trick to obtain the answer $$\frac{dc}{da} = \frac{\frac{dc}{db}}{\frac{da}{db}} = \pm \frac{22}{16}$$ In a way, the differential elements can be treated separately and we can just cancel $db$ and $db$ to obtain the answer. Here's an alternate method that would have worked out faster: $$6a^2 da = 2b db + 4c^3 dc$$ Divide this by $da$ instead. $$6a^2 da = 2b db + 4c^3 dc$$ $$6a^2 = 2b\frac{db}{da} + 4c^3\frac{dc}{da}$$ $$6(1)^2 = \frac{2(1)}{\frac{da}{db}} + 4(\pm1)^3 \frac{dc}{da}$$ $$6 = \frac{2}{4} \pm 4\frac{dc}{da}$$ $$\frac{dc}{da} = \pm \frac{22}{16}$$ However \end{document} ``` text_english/personal/main/X_experimenting_with_a_chess_alarm.md000644 000765 000024 00000002523 15234327237 026350 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-04 # X: Experimenting with a chess alarm Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I am losing a lot of cumulative time due to all the days I am not able to fix my sleep schedule. - I slept yesterday around 2:30 and work up today around 11 am if I remember correctly. My regular alarm is 8:30 am. - Methods that have not been fully successful, for me: - Keep the phone far away enough that you have to walk out of the bed to dismiss the alarm - I go back to sleep anyway - Force passcode entry in order to dismiss the alarm - I go back to sleep anyway - Keep a note asking me to open the window for sunlight, when I dismiss the alarm - This hasn't yet set in as a habit so I sometimes forget to open the window. Also I sometimes go back to sleep even with the window open - Set alarm such that I get 7 hours sleep minimum, even if I slept late. So if I sleep 2:30 am this means alarm for 9:30 am, if I sleep 2 am this means alarm 9 am. - I still think this is a good idea but I end up going back to sleep - Methods I could try: - Force myself to do a high focus task like play chess - I just now set this up today - Use multiple alarms spaced 30 min apart - I could experiment with this in future - Get a bigger window with even more sunlight - Not doing right now for reasons discussed in other posts text_english/personal/main/I_will_not_be_meeting_my_friends_for_the_next_three_months.md000644 000765 000024 00000014115 15210333333 033312 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-04 ## Update - I have already violated this to be honest. But it seems okay. - I am still isolating a fair deal. - I think the main type of conversations I am still having with friends is **serious** conversations, where I listen to something important going on in their lives, or provide some minimal input. Also these are people who don't actively pushback against my ASI risk worldview or leaking plan, so it works. --- 2026-04-28 minor edit 2026-05-05 # I will not be meeting my friends for the next three months Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - I am intentionally not commenting anything remotely related to work or politics, in the context of Russia. There is a possibility I will want to visit again in future. Also there are people I know here whose privacy I am obligated to protect. Main - **I precommit to not having many long discussions with friends for the months May, June, July 2026.** This includes long chat threads, long video calls and long in-person meetings. I'm not sure how to define "many" but I would definitely consider more than one long discussion a week to be "too many" discussions. - Why? - I'm sure atleast one of my friends will be mad at me for saying this but it needs to be said. The biggest upside of my Russia trip by far is that I am away from all my friends back in India. This is likely a major reason why I seem to be happier here. - For the next three months of my life once I return to India, I don't want bickering about politics. I don't want to write words, I want to write code. I want to become good at hacking. - Morale/motivation is the lifeblood of the org I am building. People who give negative feedback are valuable, even people who give negative moral feedback by calling me or my plan bad for the world or hurting other people or similar. But these people must be interacted with at a safe distance, maybe once a month or once in three months or similar. People who give motivation must be interacted with more often. And finding people to give me motivation to learn hacking is not easy, such people are rarer. - It is a bit ironic that the solution to "I am lonely" that actually seems to work in practice is "isolate yourself even fucking harder than you already are." But this actually makes sense theoretically as well, running mind sims of people who disapprove of your work is even worse than not meeting anyone. There are a non-zero number of people I know who approve of my work (not discussing details for privacy reasons), I can run their mind sims or meet them more. - Also - **I primarily want cofounder and work feedback from a fairly narrow audience.** - For cofounder, it's already listed in the other doc - Some intersection of ASI doomer and good hacker and power-seeking and violent and good at people skills and some mild overlap with other values of mine (be atleast a little bit truth-seeking, don't be too much of a sadist or masochist, a little bit is acceptable). - Even for work feedback, it's roughly the same - I mainly trust the advice of people who actually have lots of followers or actual positions of political power (built from scratch, not inherited from family), especially people have actually Won zero-sum political battles against opponents instead of creating an eternal culture war. I trust advice of whistleblowers and hackers somewhat too, but only if they actually had political impact instead of playing virtue-signalling game. - **I primarily want a girlfriend and relationship advice from a fairly narrow audience.** - Dating advice I don't want - Outer product - Exercise more and build muscles, pay someone to buy you better clothes - Distribution - Dating app profile optimisation, how to cold approach women, which hobby/social meetups to attend, how to host my own meetup - Dating advice I want - How did you keep your relationship across one major life transition where you actually changed one of your core values in practice not theory. - For instance, you were a self-interested corporate lawyer and then became altruistic and ran some non-profit. Or you were a practising buddhist but then you went and killed your family member as revenge for something they did. And so on. - I want advice primarily from atheists, not religious people. - I don't want advice from boring people who just did corporate job rank climbing and increasing square feet of their house their entire life. - I have a bunch of relationship experience (can't share for privacy reasons) that has radicalised me hard towards wanting to solve this problem, atleast partially, before I just go jump into some random relationship. I'm not against jumping into some random relationship and learning from reality, I just have some preference for figuring out the theory here first. - I don't think most women below 30 have solved this problem either, such that I can just find them and copy their solution. It seems increasingly likely I will have to solve this problem from scratch myself, and then explain it to my future partner. - **When you know, you know** - For both, finding a cofounder and finding a girlfriend, I do ultimately think the answer is "when you know, you know." - Some of my previous writings have overcomplicated this by attempting to create a lot of theory based on quite frankly, quite limited data and quite limited contact with reality. - I don't (yet) have a simulated machine environment where I can just simulate thousands of romantic relationships and figure out which ones work versus not. That is what actual contact with reality would be. A bunch of this stuff is fairly personalised so looking at other people's relationships gets you only so far. - **I will also be making a lot less notes over the next 3 months.** Write more code, write less notes. If I write more than say 5 notes a month, this is also a red flag. P.S. I seem to have written an older post called "stay with a sober roommate." I now override this post. I have managed to stay sober without any roommate for atleast 3 months now, so I will carry on this way. text_english/personal/main/why_use_show_dont_tell_on_date_me_docs.md000644 000765 000024 00000020330 15177753505 027263 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-09 minor edit 2026-04-29 # Why use "show, don't tell" on date me docs? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Incomplete.** might get back to it later Main - What? - I seem to increasingly prefer ["show, don't tell"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show%2C_don't_tell) as the approach for my date me doc. This post is me trying to figure out why. - My older date me doc did try to sell myself explicitly a lot more, like 'here's why I am conscientious', 'here's why I am protective', 'here's what my values are', 'here's why I have money', and so on. Feel free to go read it, but also, I no longer think this approach works well. - Potential reasons for "show, don't tell" - If you explicitly tell, you come across as neuroatypical. - For reasons I don't fully understand yet, a lot of neurotypical people already seem to have an understanding that "show, don't tell" is the way to approach dating - be it how they present themselves in-person or online across various settings. Online dating apps are already too much of "tell, don't show" for a lot of people, and date me docs take that to another extreme. - This is not a reason that influences me a lot. I am probably non-zero neuroatypical and I am trying to attract someone who understands that I am this way, and is maybe even similar themselves. So I am also fine coming across as atypical on the doc. - How do people know you are telling the truth? - For instance, I could write on my date me doc that I care about protecting women's safety, but women could just be straightforwardly correct in not believing me if I say that. - This is important. On women's safety in particular, I think actual hard evidence trumps believing what people say. - Some people seem are literally afraid of mind control. - This was surprising for me to learn, but apparently some people have a heuristic where they listen to you less if they realise they're being explicitly sold to. They're afraid that your sales pitch will work too well on them, and they'll later come to regret it. Some people are literally afraid of being mind-controlled. - I didn't first believe this, but now I think I have enough experience talking to people in-person to confirm that this is a thing. - I find this hard to relate to. It is true that society is full of all sorts of people trying to mind control you for all sorts of self-interested ends, and this includes people trying to get you to date them. My personal way of handling this is to get better at evaluating sales pitches, not to stop listening to sales pitches completely. - I understand if you are too busy to sit and evaluate it. If you really only have 60 seconds of time to sit and listen to a sales pitch, then you literally may not have enough time to think through or verify anything that the other person said. Having a general heuristic of avoiding sales pitches in general might make a little sense here. - On the internet, people tend to move way faster, atleast if they're reading your content passively, not interacting with you. They might look at your content for as little as one second before making a quick yes/no judgement on whether to read more or not. This makes atleast some sense to me because there is a huge amount of information on the internet, compared to how much time you have to evaluate all of it. - Coming back to the dating context, I seem to have some resistance to this whole idea? Why do I need to make a 60 second sales pitch when I can just give the other person 10 hours or 100 to actually evaluate whether I am the right person for them? - I understand some people approach this as a sales funnel. They're more interested in crafting sales pitches for the early stages of the funnel (on a dating profile, in making first impression in a group meet, on a first date) but more authentic in the later stages. - I still seem to have strong aversion to this that I can't explain yet. Like, I have a strong sense that a huge amount of value is being destroyed in civilisation because a lot of people are this way. - I understand increasing information density on the early stages of the funnel. Suppose there are 1000 sentences about you that are important, but people in early stages of the funnel only have time to listen to 3 sentences from you. - One thing you can do is try and compress this into a summary, based on what you think is most important. - Another thing you can do is to make guesses of what your target audience (some subset of the entire dating pool) considers important. This includes figuring out their hard filters and their soft filters. And then share the sentences most relevamt to these filtes - And yet another thing you can do is to .... **incomplete** - I do not know what makes me likeable to others. - It is possible that what I think other people like about me, is entirely different from what other people like about me. - One response to this is just 'git gud at understanding your target audience, lol' - I think this is actually quite hard to do for me to do in practice. - I have asked a few (male) friends what they like about me. I have also separately asked them what they like in a partner. - I don't currently have a large pool of women to ask these questions in person, where I know they like me and also we're close enough that they won't find it weird if I ask "what do you like about me?" - There's also the obvious problem most people (myself included) themselves don't seem to understand what makes someone else likeable to them or not. - Selling your moral values explicitly might mean you're less moral - Naval Ravikant seems to very explicitly have a heuristic that if someone is trying too hard to sell to you that they're a moral person, they're probably not a moral person. - I am quite sympathetic to this heuristic because of first-hand experience. My document on "why you should trust me" is so long precisely because I'm willing to cross some moral lines that most people wouldn't think to cross. - In my personal case, I wanna be very precise about which lines I will and won't cross, and then build some internal clarity on this myself, and then build some external credibility that I actually mean this. I don't know if this is how building trust actually works (maybe it doesn't?) but this is what I am currently trying to do. - That being said, I don't think morality is simple for anyone, and being an ethical billionaire sure as shit is complex. I know Naval didn't literally say this, but I don't endorse a heuristic that says "people who don't think too much about morality are inherently moral, because being moral is the default for humans". - I don't think a child and a (self-claimed) ethical billionaire will agree on moral values. I don't think all children would agree with each other on moral values. - I think the very fact that you enter into a trade with someone is basically the following. "I am giving you something that you seem to think is short-term good for you, and I don't really care enough about you as a person to check whether this is long-term good for you or not." If you are offering trades to people at scale, usually by making a software app that scales (like Naval recommends), it seems somewhat inevitable that this would happen. You can offer them a link to a feedback form, and maybe even some incentive, for them to honestly tell you if your product is harming them. You can get a few of your users to actually show up on a video call, or at your house. But this is just yet another trade you're offering, and if they're being sufficiently suppressed by someone else, they will refuse this trade too. I think if you're operating at that scale you atleast somewhat lose the ability to track who you are hurting versus helping. - I seem to have written this entire section above on morality while think about ASI risk, and not in a dating context. But they're obviously interconnected, how you conduct yourself in professional life will affect relationship with your partner. - (Update 2026-04-29) LMFAO why did I go on a tangent about Naval Ravikant and internet-scale morality, when the original topic was dating? Clearly my neurotic level obsession with morality. Maybe do less of this in future. text_english/personal/main/on_what_dating_metric_are_you_the_best_at_on_planet_earth.md000644 000765 000024 00000005133 15244501621 033135 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-29 # On what dating metric are you the best at on planet Earth? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Background context relevant to this discussion - [X: Consider making a 30 second video collage for your hinge profile](./X_consider_making_a_30_second_video_collage_for_your_hinge_profile.md) - [Escape competition through authenticity - by Naval Ravikant](https://nav.al/competition-authenticity) - [Keep redefining what you do until you are the best in the world at it - by Naval Ravikant](https://nav.al/redefining) Main - I like how concisely the frames in the "make a 30 second video collage" post are written. When I prioritise the time investment, I should probably act on this advice and see how it performs. - That being said, somewhere in the back of my mind, Naval's advice is still floating. My current advice to myself is a lot more about competing on normie metrics. Whereas Naval's whole advice is to escape competition between normies by becoming the best in the world at something niche (but not so niche its market is size zero). - **In a dating context, what do I offer that I am the best in the world at?** - (Or atleast, best in my city at.) - This is a tough question but worth asking. - My first answer is nothing lol. There are things I am outlier on, but not like, world-level outlier on. I am 90 percentile or 95 percentile, not 99.99 percentile on the metrics I think of. - I don't know, the only things that come to my mind are: - I am one of the few people in entire Bangalore working on ASI risk. (And generally, this well informed about all the pathways to technological progress and applying hamming question between them and so on.) - I am one of the few people in entire Bangalore maintaining this authentic a blog. - I have some mix of courage + independence + protectiveness / capacity of violence that is quite rare in Bangalore. Like, mai pagal aadmi hu bhai mai kal parliament me jaake bomb phod sakta hu agar phodna hai toh. Bhagat Singh ftw. - It is not obvious to me how any of these things is valuable in a dating context lol. - I am intelligent in a very specific way. I don't know who values this. Maybe a woman who is also ambitious at a level and in a form similar to me? They might value my perspective on their work. - I am authentic but also a lot of the stuff I am authentic about is stupid shit, it isn't particularly valuable to the world. **Okay so the answer is nothing.** Good to know. Useful thought exercise. Now terminate this line of questioning, and go back to optimising normie metrics as planned. Become a normie you fucker. text_english/personal/main/fight_like_a_demon_quotes_found_by_ai.md000644 000765 000024 00000026240 15212333465 027032 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-11 # "Fight like a demon" quotes found by AI Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - Written by gpt-5.5, may contain hallucins Here’s a **long list of fierce, defiant, “fight like a demon”–adjacent quotes** from real authors, leaders, fighters, or notable historical figures. I’ve favored lines with traceable attribution; ancient sayings are marked as “reported” where appropriate. ## Battle-cries / defiance 1. **“We shall never surrender.”** — Winston Churchill ([nationalchurchillmuseum.org](https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches.html?utm_source=openai)) 2. **“We shall not flag or fail.”** Winston Churchill ([nationalchurchillmuseum.org](https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches.html?utm_source=openai)) 3. **Never give in, never, never, never—never.”** — Winston Churchill ([nationalchurchillmuseum.org](https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/never-give-in-never-never-never.html?utm_source=openai)) 4. **“I have not yet begun to fight!”** John Paul Jones ([history.navy.mil](https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/famous-navy-quotations.html?utm_source=openai)) 5. **“Dont give up the ship!”** — James Lawrence ([battlefields.org](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/dont-give-ship?utm_source=openai)) 6. **“Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”** — David Farragut, traditional/paraphrased order ([usni.org](https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/july/damn-torpedoes?utm_source=openai)) 7. **“Nuts!”** — Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, reply to a German surrender demand at Bastogne ([time.com](https://time.com/5748498/battle-of-the-bulge-history/?utm_source=openai)) 8. **“Give me liberty, or give me death!”** — Patrick Henry, traditional/reconstructed wording ([battlefields.org](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death?utm_source=openai)) 9. **“Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”** — John Stark ([csg.org](https://www.csg.org/2026/04/03/new-hampshire-the-granite-state/?utm_source=openai)) 10. **“Better die standing, than live kneeling!”** — Dolores Ibárruri, “La Pasionaria” ([marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/archive/ibarruri/1936/09/03.htm?utm_source=openai)) 11. **¡No pasarán!” / “They shall not pass!”** — associated with Dolores Ibárruri and the Spanish Republican cause ([marxists.org](https://www.marxists.org/espanol/ibarruri/1936/jul/19.htm?utm_source=openai)) 12. **“Come and take them.”** — Leonidas of Sparta, reported by Plutarch as *molon labe* ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe?utm_source=openai)) 13. **Hasta la victoria siempre!” / “Until victory, always!”** — Che Guevara ([en.wikiquote.org](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara?utm_source=openai)) 14. **“In a revolution one wins or dies.”** — Che Guevara ([en.wikiquote.org](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara?utm_source=openai)) 15. **“By any means necessary.”** — Malcolm X ([malcolm-x.org](https://www.malcolm-x.org/quotes.htm?utm_source=openai)) 16. **“Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary.”** — Malcolm X ([malcolm-x.org](https://www.malcolm-x.org/quotes.htm?utm_source=openai)) 17. **“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”** — Frederick Douglass ([cooperative-individualism.org](https://cooperative-individualism.org/douglass-frederick_if-there-is-no-struggle-there-is-no-progress-1857-aug.pdf?utm_source=openai)) 18. **“Power concedes nothing without a demand.”** — Frederick Douglass ([askasuffragist.com](https://askasuffragist.com/if-there-is-no-struggle-there-is-no-progress-power-concedes-nothing-without-a-demand-it-never-did-and-it-never-will-frederick-douglass-1857/?utm_source=openai)) 19. **“These are the times that try men’s souls.”** — Thomas Paine ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31270/31270-h/31270-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 20. **“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.** — Thomas Paine ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31270/31270-h/31270-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 21. **“The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”** — Thomas Paine ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31270/31270-h/31270-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 22. **The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.** — Theodore Roosevelt ([theodorerooseveltcenter.org](https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Quotes/The%20man%20who%20really%20counts%20in%20the%20world%20is%20the%20doer%20%20not%20the%20mere%20critic?utm_source=openai)) 23. **“Daring greatly.”** Theodore Roosevelt ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic?utm_source=openai)) 24. **“I have the heart and stomach of a king.”** — Elizabeth I, Tilbury speech tradition ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury?utm_source=openai)) ## Literary lines with the same ferocity 25. **“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.”** — William Shakespeare, *Henry V* ([en.wikisource.org](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Henry_V_%281918%29_Yale/Text/Act_III?utm_source=openai)) 26. **“Then imitate the action of the tiger.”** — William Shakespeare, *Henry V* ([en.wikisource.org](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Henry_V_%281918%29_Yale/Text/Act_III?utm_source=openai)) 27. **“Lay on, Macduff.”** — William Shakespeare, *Macbeth* ([dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/macduff-lay-on?utm_source=openai)) 28. **“Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”** — William Shakespeare, *Julius Caesar* ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dogs_of_war_%28phrase%29?utm_source=openai)) 29. **“Though she be but little, she is fierce.”** — William Shakespeare, *A Midsummer Night’s Dream* ([en.wikisource.org](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AMidsummer_Night%27s_Dream_%281918%29_Yale.djvu/60?utm_source=openai)) 30. **“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”** — Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Ulysses” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses?utm_source=openai)) 31. **“Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will.”** — Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Ulysses” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses?utm_source=openai)) 32. **“Come, my friends, ’tis not too late to seek a newer world.”** — Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Ulysses” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses?utm_source=openai)) 33. **“My head is bloody, but unbowed.”** — William Ernest Henley, “Invictus” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus?utm_source=openai)) 34. **“I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”** — William Ernest Henley, “Invictus” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus?utm_source=openai)) 35. **“Do not go gentle into that good night.”** — Dylan Thomas ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46569/do-not-go-gentle-into-that-good-night/?utm_source=openai)) 36. **“Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”** — Dylan Thomas ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46569/do-not-go-gentle-into-that-good-night/?utm_source=openai)) 37. **“Awake, arise, or be for ever fall’n.”** — John Milton, *Paradise Lost* ([goodreads.com](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9401704-awake-arise-or-be-for-ever-fall-n?utm_source=openai)) 38. **“All is not lost.”** — John Milton, *Paradise Lost* ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20/20-h/20-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 39. **“A man can be destroyed but not defeated.”** — Ernest Hemingway, *The Old Man and the Sea* ([magicalquote.com](https://www.magicalquote.com/bookquotes/man-made-defeat-man-can-destroyed-defeated/?utm_source=openai)) 40. **“The world breaks everyone, and afterward, many are strong at the broken places.”** — Ernest Hemingway ([quotes.net](https://www.quotes.net/quote/790?utm_source=openai)) 41. **“Still I rise.”** — Maya Angelou ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46446/still-i-rise?utm_source=openai)) 42. **“But still, like dust, I’ll rise.”** — Maya Angelou, “Still I Rise” ([poetryfoundation.org](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46446/still-i-rise?utm_source=openai)) 43. **Your silence will not protect you.”** — Audre Lorde ([si.edu](https://www.si.edu/object/your-silence-will-not-protect-you-audre-lorde%3Asiris_sil_1105222?utm_source=openai)) ## Philosophical / inner-war lines 44. **“That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.”** — Friedrich Nietzsche ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/old/52263-h/52263-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 45. **“From the military school of life.”** — Friedrich Nietzsche ([gutenberg.org](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/old/52263-h/52263-h.htm?utm_source=openai)) 46. **“The obstacle on the road helps us on this road.”** — Marcus Aurelius, in George Long’s translation of *Meditations* ([www2.latech.edu](https://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/406/texts/marcus_aurelius/Marcus_Aurelius--Meditations.pdf?utm_source=openai)) 47. **“The mind converts every hindrance to its activity into an aid.”** — Marcus Aurelius ([www2.latech.edu](https://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/406/texts/marcus_aurelius/Marcus_Aurelius--Meditations.pdf?utm_source=openai)) 48. **“Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men.”** — Seneca ([quotery.com](https://www.quotery.com/quotes/fire-test-gold-adversity-strong?utm_source=openai)) 49. **“The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it.”** — commonly attributed to Epictetus ([quotepark.com](https://quotepark.com/quotes/2081979-epictetus-the-greater-the-difficulty-the-more-glory-in-surm/?utm_source=openai)) 50. **“The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”** — Nelson Mandela ([nelsonmandela.org](https://www.nelsonmandela.org/news/entry/head-and-heart-the-lessons-of-leadership-from-nelson-mandela?utm_source=openai)) ## Fighters / athletes / martial energy 51. **“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”** — Muhammad Ali ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/04/muhammad-ali-greatest-quotes-sting-butterfly-louisville-lip?utm_source=openai)) 52. **“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”** — Mike Tyson ([sportskeeda.com](https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-everybody-plan-get-punched-mouth-how-famous-mike-tyson-quote-originate?utm_source=openai)) 53. **“Be water, my friend.”** — Bruce Lee ([en.wikiquote.org](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Water?utm_source=openai)) 54. **“You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.”** — Wayne Gretzky ([quotery.com](https://www.quotery.com/quotes/miss-100-shots-dont-take?utm_source=openai)) No essays/blogs were relied on for the list, so I haven’t applied Paul Graham’s “useful writing” scale here. text_english/personal/main/morality_of_persuading_vulnerable_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000001571 15177753505 027650 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-02 # Morality of persuading vulnerable people Disclaimer - Thinking aloud. May not endorse after a lot of thought. Main - More attempts to figure out why I seem to be losing self-esteem. - Important disclaimer I should remember - I am not working full-time on persuasion so it's not actually my job to figure out persuasion. - That being said, I did previously say that you should target vulnerable for persuasion. Find people who are suffering a lot and then give them your worldview. - I shouldn't actually be conflicted about doing this. - I would be willing to do this to my friends as well. Some of my friends don't buy the case for ASI risk yet. I am fine telling them - once you lose your job and there is breakdown of law and order, then you'll remember what I told you before about ASI risk. This is the actual truth lol, why should I be ashamed of admitting it? text_english/personal/main/masculine_urge_to_put_your_entire_networth_in_nvidia_far_otm_calls.md000644 000765 000024 00000010716 15235312262 035162 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-07 # The masculine urge to put your entire net worth in Nvidia far OTM calls Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Not financial advice - Not discussing exact numbers of my net worth - Not discussing legality of purchasing options, crypto, etc from India Main - AAAAA - Frustrated looking at how little financial runway I have left. - Worst case, have to burn a year or two of my life on some dumbfuck job in order to get more runway. One year out of five, given the world may be over in five years. - Feeling the masculine urge to put your entire net worth in Nvidia far OTM calls - I considered purchasing OpenAI shares through these shady grey market platforms back when OpenAI was barely $35B market cap. I decided against it due to some combination of - it will be a lot of work to figure out how to do this, plus uncertainty as to whether this is a great bet (or merely just a good risk-adjusted). I was confident it was positive EV, I just did not want to put more than maybe 25% of my networth into it back then. - By the time OpenAI shares were $300B market cap, I was pretty confident this is a great bet, I believed OpenAI was going to hit $1T with atleast 50% probability therefore rational move is just buy. But then I told myself stories around conflict-of-interest and ingroup-versus-outgroup and stuff. Don't fund your enemy. Don't make the incentives such that you are making money when you are losing the war, and losing money when you are winning the war. - Now that OpenAI shares are $1.5T, I am still confident this is a great bet. Heck, Nvidia is at $5T and I am still confident this is a great bet. For reference, the US S&P500 has a $70T market cap. But now I literally don't have enough free money left to bet, everything is just immediate runway to survive lol. Part of me wants to just put my entire networth in Nvidia far OTM calls, get some tech job, wait for 18 months for my networth to 5x, and then get back into the arena then. More analysis of the Nvidia bet - Nvidia is trading at a P/E of 33 which is absolutely nuts. I would consider it a positive EV stock even if it was trading at a P/E of 100 lmao. Current market cap is around $5T, current annual revenue is $5T / 33 approx (it varies a lot every quarter). - Bet being analysed: Mark price $220. Strike $260 (20% OTM). Premium is $50. (Breakeven point is $310) Expiry 2028-12-15. Today is 2026-08-07 - I would put atleast 25% probability of Nvidia being worth 5x by 2028-12 - As in market cap $25T, stock price $1100 - In this scenario, Nvidia basically eats up the entire world economy. This means dumb and big funds also are accounting for a significant chance the singularity is coming. Profit multiple = (1100-260-50)/50 = 15.8x - This tail scenario alone justifies the entire bet. 15.8x * 25% = 4x, which means lower bound EV is already 400%. The rest of the discussion is just to figure out bet sizing. - I'd put atleast 25% probability Nvidia crashes, hence profit multiple = -1x - I'd put atleast 15% probability Nvidia remains at roughly the same price till 2028-12 atleast, hence profit multiple = -1x - The remaining 35% probability mass here is what I am most unsure about. Will it 1.5x or 2x or 3x? - If Nvidia does 1.5x, your bet makes a loss. (220 * 1.5 - 260 - 50)/50 = 0.4x - If Nvidia does 2x, your bet does well. (220 * 2 - 260 - 50)/50 = 2.6x - If Nvidia does 3x, your bet does very well. (220 * 3 - 260 - 50)/50 = 7x - All-in-all this bet has an expected value of maybe 600% in ~2.5 years, which is completely nuts? There is a roughly 50-50 chance of it also going to zero though. - Also, I don't care about losing my net worth in the worlds where ASI doesn't come soon. If there has been no major AI progress till 2028-12, that is also a bearish signal for AI progress happening in the years after that. Maybe I am fine with just taking the loss in 50% of possible worlds. Main 2 - Foregoing an upside of 600% just to take a bet on myself seems atleast a little bit insane. But also on the other hand it feels like the obvious move. Like, obviously having $100k or $1M is going to mean nothing if you wasted the next 3 years fucking around, obviously right now is the time to do direct work. - There is also the whole conflict of interest thing ofcourse. On one hand, I am telling people to go bomb TSMC, on the other hand my networth is stuck in Nvidia calls. Seems hypocritical. You can't be diversifying risk at a moment like this. Pick a side and fucking fight for it. text_english/personal/main/the_only_plan_more_ambitious_than_mine_that_I_believe_in.md000644 000765 000024 00000031411 15177753505 032740 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-26 # The only plan more ambitious than mine, that I believe in Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - If I succeed at my current cyberattack plan, it is probably going to inspire previously unimagined levels of political violence and zero-sum behaviour in the US. - There will be more assassination attempts. There will be more hackers. There will be riots to actually storm the compute clusters and AI company offices. All the people building ASI (or maybe all people in tech, or maybe all atheists, or maybe all intellectually curious high-openness people, etc) are going to face social ostracism and public shaming, and everyone that holds similar traits will also face public shaming and ostracism. - This might be necessary, but it makes me uncomfortable, and I want to first eliminate the possibility of better plans. - The only plan more ambitious than mine, that I believe in: - Use social media to meme all the major nuclear-armed country's populations to (relatively non-violently) topple their own governments and create true direct democracies. The influencers will have to live outside the soil of the country whose population they want to influence. You can get non-violent topplings if you really do have a sufficiently large follower count (for instance if 90% of the country follows you, you can trivially do non-violent regime change overnight). - Then use social media to meme each of these democracies into merging and create a federal world government. This will require, for instance, negotiating some intermediate solution or ideology between the individualist approach to sex/family/parenting in US, and the slightly more collectivist approach in China (because China is poorer on average, and poorer societies are more collectivist). - **I don't need to a particle collider for morality to solve all of the culture war, just need to solve enough to force a US-China agreement to world government.** - To do - google public conversations between US and Chinese people who both wield privileged access to social dark matter (therapists, priests, political advisors, etc). - Make sure transparency is enforced under threat of violence, on this federal world government. This ensures they don't start a secret underground ASI project or misuse their monopoly on violence. - This is what a true positive-sum plan to fix ASI risk would look like. - A major bottleneck to all this is that the few social media influencers attempting stuff like are on slow exponential growth curves in followers, when what is required is superexponentials or jump functions in follower count. - Lol what if I just ask MrBeast to meme a world government into existence? He is at the power level where he can topple multiple nuclear-armed states, simultaneously, if he really put his mind into it (and/or had relevant skilled people to help him). --- ## gpt-5.4 on MrBeast followers outside US geopolitical sphere of influence (may contain hallucins) As of **March 25, 2026**, exact country-by-country audience counts for MrBeast are **not publicly available** in a clean first-party dashboard, so the best you can do is use public proxies. Also, these proxies are **not apples-to-apples**: for China and Russia I found follower/subscriber proxies, for India I found a country-specific monthly-view proxy, and for Pakistan/Israel I mostly found ranking-based inference. ([zeroroku.com](https://zeroroku.com/bilibili/author/1027737427)) Here’s the best estimate set I can defend: - **China:** about **6.9M direct followers** on MrBeast’s official Bilibili account. ZeroRoku shows **6,922,838 followers on March 17, 2026**. On launch, Bloomberg reported his first Bilibili post quickly drew **3M+ views** and **270K+ likes**, which is consistent with a real, large China audience. My practical takeaway: **China = roughly 7M+ direct local-platform followers**, likely higher if you include his other China-platform presence, but I did not find a current clean combined total. ([zeroroku.com](https://zeroroku.com/bilibili/author/1027737427)) - **India:** the strongest public proxy I found is **HypeAuditor’s India ranking**, which lists MrBeast as **#1 in India** and says his channel generated **62.3M views in India in March 2026**. So the best working estimate is **~62M monthly India views** on that metric, which makes India one of his very biggest markets. ([hypeauditor.com](https://hypeauditor.com/top-youtube-all-india/)) - **Russia:** the cleanest Russia-specific proxy is the localized channel **“MrBeast На Руском”**, which tubics lists at **6.7M subscribers** and **#6** among top YouTube channels in Russia. My working estimate is therefore **~6–7M Russian-language subscribers/audience proxy**. Caveat: that is a **Russian-language** proxy, not a perfect count of viewers physically in Russia. ([tubics.com](https://www.tubics.com/rankings/countries/ru)) - **Pakistan:** I **did not find a direct public country count**. MrBeast does **not** appear on tubics’ Pakistan top-30 page, and he also does **not** show up on the HypeAuditor Pakistan ranking page I checked. So my read is: **meaningful but clearly smaller than India or Russia**, probably **low single-digit millions at most** as a rough order-of-magnitude estimate. Confidence here is **low**. ([tubics.com](https://www.tubics.com/rankings/countries/pk)) - **Israel:** same problem as Pakistan: I **did not find a direct public country count**, and MrBeast does **not** appear on tubics’ Israel top-30 page. tubics’ Israel leaderboard shows the biggest local channels in the low-single-digit millions, so my rough takeaway is that MrBeast likely has a **real but comparatively modest** Israel audience — **probably sub-million to low-single-digit millions**. Confidence is **low**. ([tubics.com](https://www.tubics.com/rankings/countries/il)) If you want the shortest possible version, I’d summarize it as: - **India:** ~**62M monthly views** - **China:** ~**6.9M direct Bilibili followers** - **Russia:** ~**6.7M Russian-language subscribers** - **Pakistan:** **low single-digit millions** *(rough, low confidence)* - **Israel:** **sub-million to low-single-digit millions** *(rough, low confidence)* ([hypeauditor.com](https://hypeauditor.com/top-youtube-all-india/)) What I found but **couldn’t** find: I found decent public proxies for **China, India, and Russia**, but I **didn’t find reliable direct country counts** for **Pakistan or Israel**; for those two, the public evidence is mostly **ranking absence + relative market position**, not a hard audience number. ([tubics.com](https://www.tubics.com/rankings/countries/pk)) If you want, I can do a second pass and turn this into a **clean table with one normalized metric** only, e.g.: - **monthly YouTube views by country** - **followers/subscribers by country/platform** - **best-estimate reachable audience by country** ## gpt-5.4 on superexponential follower growth curves (may contains hallucins) Short answer: the clearest **major** examples are **Khaby Lame, Charli D’Amelio, Bella Poarch, Ibai Llanos, Kai Cenat, IShowSpeed**, and—more as a sequence of slope-jumps than one clean burst—**MrBeast**. My read is that truly sustained **superexponential** follower growth is rare; what public histories usually show is either a short **convex-up viral window** or a big **event-driven step change**. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/congratulations-khaby-lame-for-100-m-followers)) **Best superexponential-ish early curves** - **Khaby Lame (TikTok):** one of the strongest sustained examples. TikTok says he started on **March 15, 2020** and hit **100M followers by August 11, 2021**, i.e. in **under 17 months**; by **June 24, 2022** he had reached **142.5M** and passed Charli D’Amelio for No. 1 on TikTok. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/congratulations-khaby-lame-for-100-m-followers)) - **Charli D’Amelio (TikTok):** another canonical early TikTok case. TikTok says she began posting in **May 2019** and became the **first creator ever to hit 100M followers** on **November 22, 2020**, in **less than 18 months**. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/congratulations-charli-damelio-for-100-million-followers-paving-the-way-for-creators-everywhere?lang=en)) - **Bella Poarch (TikTok):** probably the closest TikTok got to a near-jump around a single viral object. Forbes’ reporting says her **first post was in April 2020**, and by late **2020** she was at about **40M followers** and had gained followers **faster than any other TikToker**, driven by the “M to the B” breakout. ([forbes.com](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/12/26/2020s-top-online-video-was-an-infectious-tiktok-lip-sync-and-its-now-more-liked-than-anything-on-youtube/?utm_source=openai)) **Best jump-function / event-jump cases** - **Ibai Llanos (Twitch):** this is the cleanest “step function” example I found. During **La Velada del Año V** on **July 26, 2025**, Streams Charts says he hit **9.33M peak viewers**, reached **19.69M followers**, and later summarized the event as having given him **1.7M followers in a single broadcast**. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/la-velada-del-ano-v-ibai-records)) - **Kai Cenat (Twitch):** more like repeated jump clusters around special events. Streams Charts had him at **12.06M followers on July 11, 2024** after his 2023 **Mafiathon** breakout; by **September 12, 2025** he was at **19.24M**, having added **600,000 followers in the prior month** during **Mafiathon 3**. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/kai-cenat-overtakes-xqc-5th-most-followed-twitch-streamer)) - **IShowSpeed (YouTube/Twitch):** another strong jump-pattern case tied to IRL tours and platform returns. Streams Charts says his global tours added **9.5M followers** overall, with **3.5M** coming from East/Southeast Asia tour streams alone; separately, he hit **1M Twitch followers eight days after returning** to Twitch in **July 2025**. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/ishowspeed-global-tours)) **Big creator with repeated slope-jumps rather than one pure burst** - **MrBeast (YouTube):** I would not call his whole curve “superexponential,” but I *would* call it a sequence of unusually large step-ups in growth rate. Axios had him at **270M subscribers on June 3, 2024** when he passed T-Series; AP noted he had **surpassed 400M** by **June 2025**; Social Blade shows him at **473M** on **March 25, 2026**. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2024/06/03/mrbeast-youtube-most-subscribers-tseries/?utm_source=openai)) If you want the **tightest shortlist**, I’d rank them like this: 1. **Khaby Lame** — best sustained superexponential-ish TikTok run. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/congratulations-khaby-lame-for-100-m-followers)) 2. **Charli D’Amelio** — foundational early TikTok hypergrowth case. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/congratulations-charli-damelio-for-100-million-followers-paving-the-way-for-creators-everywhere?lang=en)) 3. **Bella Poarch** — strongest single-viral-object jump on TikTok. ([forbes.com](https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2020/12/26/2020s-top-online-video-was-an-infectious-tiktok-lip-sync-and-its-now-more-liked-than-anything-on-youtube/?utm_source=openai)) 4. **Ibai Llanos** — cleanest literal jump function in public follower data. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/la-velada-del-ano-v-ibai-records)) 5. **Kai Cenat** repeated event-driven Twitch jumps. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/kai-cenat-overtakes-xqc-5th-most-followed-twitch-streamer)) 6. **IShowSpeed** — tour-driven jump clusters across platforms. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/ishowspeed-global-tours)) 7. **MrBeast** — repeated slope changes at giant scale. ([axios.com](https://www.axios.com/2024/06/03/mrbeast-youtube-most-subscribers-tseries/?utm_source=openai)) **Paul Graham “useful writing” score for the blog/newsroom-style sources I referenced** - **TikTok Newsroom milestone posts:** **5/10 useful** — good for exact dates and milestone confirmation, but not very analytical about why the curve looked the way it did. ([newsroom.tiktok.com](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/congratulations-charli-damelio-for-100-million-followers-paving-the-way-for-creators-everywhere?lang=en)) - **Streams Charts posts:** **8/10 useful** — much more useful for your specific question because they report concrete follower gains tied to specific events. ([streamscharts.com](https://streamscharts.com/news/kai-cenat-overtakes-xqc-5th-most-followed-twitch-streamer)) If you want, I can turn this into a stricter **taxonomy** next: - **true superexponential** - **superlinear / convex-up** - **step-function / jump** - **ordinary exponential** - **logistic saturation** personal/main/everything_you_care_about_can_be_taken_away_from_you_in_the_end_there_is_only_power.md000644 000765 000024 00000014127 15224514734 040422 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-07-11 # Everything you care about can be taken away from you. In the end, there is only Power Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - Violating the X Y rule a little bit to write this post, hope it is important enough to be worth doing so. Main - Pieces of context that are all pointing at the same core thing: - Me reading Mockingjay 20 times cover-to-cover (yes, really) back in teenage, and being strongly able to relate to the epilogue and the overall theme, that everything and everyone you care about can be taken away from you. Me watching videos of gore and torture and so on, to prove to myself that I don't care, as if getting proof of machismo for myself maybe. - A recent interaction with a friend, where they showed me some items they care about. And this prompting me to consider why I don't keep any physical items, like souvenirs or memories or similar, and why all the things I value (even most hobbies I value) are digital in nature. - Me now choosing to make my life so public. Lots of past experiences with maintaining various levels of privacy and opsec and all of that being mostly a flop, and file formats being so bad and opsec being so hard and so on. Me now thinking being transparent to public, and not anonymous and private, is the answer. Even Satoshi and Silence Dogood only went private **after** the core ideas were discussed publicly. Starting from being private is a recipe for a failed life. - If there are any survivors after a full-scale nuclear exchange, they might be able to revive a copy of the bitcoin blockchain. All your relationships will break away, all your physical belongings will wither and decay, but ideas are bulletproof. A thousand years later people may still preserve the memes and religions you left behind, they may re-invent the technologies you once you knew how to build. - See also: [Trapped priors by Scott Alexander](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/trapped-priors-as-a-basic-problem), [Truth or Dare by Duncan Sabien](https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/truth-or-dare) - Lots of arguments with a therapist. Lots of disagreements with various therapy / psychology books that think everything is priors based on emotions based on past experiences, but nothing is grounded based on actual truth. Like, you might have bad past experience and hence have pessimistic prior that Alice will betray you with 50% probability. But also IMO there is an actual real probability of Alice betraying that is non-zero, maybe it is 5%. - See also: [Power lies trembling by Richard Ngo](https://www.mindthefuture.info/p/power-lies-trembling) - Too theoretical but I actually like this post because it atleast tries to merge all the perspectives: - The probability you assign to the other betraying you, affects the probability that they will in fact betray you. Both, due to selection effects of who you meet as a result of your worldview, and because the other person can mind read you atleast a little and take that into account when choosing how to behave. - Past experiences can trap you into assigning consistently pessimistic prior probabilities of the other person betraying you. - There is also an actual non-zero probability that they will betray you, regardless of how optimistic or pessimistic you are. - The practical takeaway I took away from a low trust period in my life, which was that yes that people can betray you with some probability, you would even betray your epsilon-shifted clones with some probability given a sufficiently zero-sum situation (like fistfighting to death for control over an ASI), and inspite of all this you should have relationships and be public and so on. Accept that relationships have half-life numbers and they wither and die and this is okay, it is better than complete isolation. Accept that political institutions have half-life numbers, democracies decay to dictatorships and vice versa. Everything is temporary. - In the end, there is only power. Naked you shall bow before it. Memes (self-replicating ideas), incentives and religions (self-replicating ideas with self-replicating groups and incentives) are all that will last. - Most people would rather genocide their innocent friends than be outcast by their social circle. Most people would rather sell themselves to the highest bidder than be outcast by their social circle. If you ask people in quiet moments, they will often openly admit that this is who they are. It is the people who do not admit it who are sus, see all Viktor Suvorov's reasoning. - (Update) I don't think this property of human beings can be changed so easily via self-fulfilling prophecies alone. You can't just believe that people are better than this, and expect that they will actually be better than this. Never in human history has there been a population so principled it would not genocide itself. Atleast that is my current understanding of history, weak opinion though. End - Ozymandias why hast thou forsaken me - I feel like watching Threads again lol. Most depressing movie but yes. Update - Ended up watching second half of Threads, and then sleeping off because of how depressing it was. - Bought a soft toy. Makes me want to cry honestly. Although I am happy it is now bought. Purchased [DJUNGELSKOG - brown bear, large](https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/djungelskog-soft-toy-brown-bear-00402832/) from IKEA. Did my research to ensure I pick a toy whose product line has lasted many years (less probability it will be discontinued in next few years), and will be available across many cities. 2026-07-12 Another update - Just skimmed through last few chapters of 1984 by orwell again. I like how the book cuts through all the bullshit and basically delivers the same point yet again. Most people would (under sufficiently adversarial circumstances) personally kill their wives, husbands, mothers, children and so on. - I don't like that parts of society are still in some sort of collective delusion over this, and they think they would not kill their loved ones. Unless you have some concrete evidence proving it, you have no reason to believe you are any better a person than this. You = all people text_english/personal/main/looking_at_my_happy_notes_made_me_happy.md000644 000765 000024 00000000631 15210332540 027404 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-04 # Looking at my happy notes made me happy Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Looking at my happy notes made me happy. - I should probably more intentionally make lists of thing that make me happy, or have made me happy in the past. - Note to my future self - go make the list. - Pictures of flowers make me happy for uh ... reasons I can't publicly get into. text_english/personal/main/I_would_rather_be_in_kim_jong_uns_shoes_than_my_own.md000644 000765 000024 00000003472 15256244364 031766 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-27 # I would rather be in Kim Jong Un's shoes than my own Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - If someone gave me a button to press and I could just be in his shoes, I might press it. - I will have to kill atleast some of my family and friends. I will have to promise harems of sex slaves to my allies. I will have to make deals with African pharmaceutical manufacturers. I will have to sponsor crypto hackers. I will have to starve and brainwash my population. I obviously cannot be honest and speak the truth. I will have very few people I can trust, and will always be watching my back for which of my allies is going to attempt to screw me over next (and ofcourse I will then have to torture them as punishment). - In return for this torture inflicted upon me, I get nuclear weapons and a slice of control over the future. - A good part of me is genuinely fine with this trade. I would in fact butcher every single person I have ever loved, if I got absolute authority to use nukes in return. Power is worth that much to me, atleast as of now. - I am not in Kim Jong Un's shoes because I don't have the magic button, because suffering 10 years for a goal is much harder than just pressing a button, because I don't know how to get into his shoes even if I wanted to and was willing to suffer for 10 years for it, and because I seem to care about speaking the truth far too much to become a politician. Sad. - Oh also, I think Kim atleast to some extent genuinely likes inflicting pain on people. Whereas I want to use the necessary amount of violence, but nothing extra beyond that. (There are other world leaders who I won't name, who also are closer to my stance of "willing to kill many people if required but dont intrinsically enjoy killing people".) text_english/personal/main/email_everyone.md000644 000765 000024 00000001451 15177753505 022320 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-14 # Email everyone Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - I think I should just cold email everyone I even somewhat respect - be it bloggers, be it EA/LW people, be it old irl contacts, and ask them for moral feedback. Give them one last chance to explain themselves. Seems important. - The thing is, for a lot of people I do have simple disagreements like "you dont think ASI is coming" or "you are naive about how to acquire power, or how inter-elite conflicts actually work". But I still seem to respect some of these people regardless. So I should just cold email everyone just for them to try and prove me wrong one last time. - Once I am committed to my plan, then there is no second guessing it. Hence I should invest time to get clarity upfront. text_english/personal/main/I_am_optimistic_about_technology_and_cynical_about_human_nature.md000644 000765 000024 00000007554 15177753505 034351 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-01 minor edit 2025-05-07 # I am optimistic about technology and cynical about human nature Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Possibly contains politically sensitive info** - I have intentionally not written a lot of rants this month. Want to restrict myself to less rants in general, thinking about your bad mood seems to make the mood worse in general, and I have hit diminishing returns on useful insights from said thinking. But I will excuse myself and make one rant this month too. Main - I had to walk out of VDNKh because it was so overwhelming disappointing. Just had so much grief. - For political reasons, I can't afford to criticise any country in particular here. I think all my points below apply to both the US and to Russia and to UK and to any country that invests in technology. - I am calm now so I am in less of a ranty mood. - I think the original thing that triggered me was just, yet another realisation that: - "That's it? This is the sum total of human progress, of a trillion years of blood, sweat and tears." - It's like, imagine when the world ends and we the human race have to justify ourselves to some master being with root access to the universe, who creates parallel universes for fun. He will be like, "your species was given a trillion years from the time vault, what did you do with it?" And we will be like, "we built uranium centrifuges and gold-plated solar panels and coal-operated thermal engines and microscopes and telescopes and ...". And then he will be like, "that's it? That's all you achieved with a trillion years?" And he will laugh us out of the room. - Most of the technology on display was literally invented in soviet / WW2 era. Just like most of the same technology in the US. - It's like, only if you take a person and go kill their family and then say, "innovate otherwise you're next", that they will actually invest their money or attention in inventing new technology. This is why world war 2 and cold war fueled so much technological progress. Or even the wars fueling drone tech today. Otherwise "hilake so ja" is all that this species knows to do. - Peter Thiel is right about progress happening in bits not atoms since WW2. - Nick Bostrom is right about humans being the dumbest fucking species to be capable of building a technological civilisation. - I actually now relate a little bit to the LW rationalists who want to colonise the universe and whatnot. I am still not fully onboard, but I can relate a bit. - I actually feel a bit ashamed to be part of this species. I know that's a weird thing to claim, if I belonged to a different species I would not be me. - Paul Graham is right about scientists and entrepreneurs doing their best work as lonely fucking people. - There is a deep cynicism about human nature that has infected silicon valley, and quite frankly it has infected me too. - Making (bad) attempts to influence politics of ASI risk has made me realise how truly stupid the average person is (and by stupid I am not talking about IQ, IQ is not actually the problem here). - People only do long horizon tasks, if they would suffer if they didn't do them. Growth comes through suffering. This is also why every religion and political ideology out there shamelessly targets the most vulnerable people in society. - When I think about targeting vulnerable people with anti-ASI propaganda, I atleast pause and think, wait is this really what I want to be telling them about? Is that a good idea, morally speaking? But most other ideologies out there are 100% shameless in targeting vulnerable people. I don't want to criticise any one ideology in particular here for reasons of my own safety. - Side Note but lmao, is this why GPT-5 has short time horizon? Most human data is also about short time horizon tasks, very few people actually solve tasks with a decade or longer time horizon so the data is limited. text_english/personal/main/the_terror_of_being_wrong_and_gambling_your_self_esteem.md000644 000765 000024 00000002106 15201363666 032640 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-14 # The terror of being wrong, and gambling your self-esteem Main - Gambling your self-esteem is terrifying. - Lots of people on lesswrong clearly disagree with my plan, and many won't provide good reasons for the same or engage with my reasons for what I'm doing. - The problem is I simultaneously think a lot of them are wrong, but also, I could be wrong too, and maybe someone there knows it? - I'm taking actions that only make sense if it turned out they were necessary, otherwise I will actually dislike myself as a person for taking them. That is a heavy price to pay. It could be irreversible. - On one hand, yes, I do think I want to going all-in in the next 5-10 years. There is no point in keeping a clean reputation for some hypothetical scenario 10 years later. Go all-in and fight now, or go home. - Some of these people on LW are not as all-in as I am. - Also, I seem to be wasting way too much time on this stuff. - I need to get to work. - I will learn more only by meeting people in-person to talk, or actually becoming a hacker and learning from reality. text_english/personal/main/had_a_dream_of_being_imprisoned.md000644 000765 000024 00000000753 15231567255 025602 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-27 # Had a dream of being imprisoned Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I had a dream where I was imprisoned and there was this dog that would just be bumping into it, it also tried to pull my hat off. I was tied up ofcourse. - There were two policemen nearby. I would try to alert them to take the dog away from me, since I don't know if the dog will bite me or not. But they were lazy and didn't seem to care either way if I got bitten or not. text_english/personal/main/gpt5_kapil_gupta_advice_copy_pasted.md000644 000765 000024 00000022015 15177753505 026460 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-21 # gpt-5 kapil gupta advice (copy-pasted) I read Samuel's "Unhappiness since 2023" (dated **2025-11-24**, with updates through **2026-02-12**). I'm responding as an *approximation* of "Kapil's POV" based on Kapil's public material (not as Kapil, and not medical/clinical advice). ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) ## Feedback in "Kapil's" voice ### 1) You're treating "unhappiness" as if it's downstream of "AI risk." You explicitly frame the causal story as: *AI risk → need power/conflict → doomed civilization → unhappy*. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) From my lens: that's the mind creating a **grand, coherent justification** for an inner condition it doesn't want to feel without a "valid reason." Even if every one of your AI-risk beliefs is correct, your suffering still isn't "caused by AI risk." It's caused by the *relationship to* fear, urgency, responsibility, identity, and the need for control—and the *war* between parts of you (you even notice a version of this: "unhappiness as a mechanism to bully other parts into submission"). ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) Kapil's frame is: **freedom comes from understanding where things come from, not from consciously trying to end them.** ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) So the question is not "How do I fix AI risk fast enough to justify peace?" The question is: *what is the mind doing, moment to moment, that generates your bondage*? ### 2) You are drowning in "prescriptions" while telling yourself you're being "non-delusional." You write priorities, solution lists, "nuclear options," location moves, new roommates as experiments, etc. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) Kapil repeatedly warns that prescriptions ("how-tos") become "the new god," especially in inner-life problems. ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) This doesn't mean "don't do practical things." It means: notice the mind's move: - "If I do X, I will finally be ok." - Then X becomes an idol. - Then you suffer when X doesn't deliver, or you get a temporary hit and need the next hit. Kapil's wording is harsh here: the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are poison; the weapon is *seeing* what the mind is doing, not trying to mechanically force it to stop. ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) ### 3) Your *most acute* problem is not ideology. It's addiction + social dysfunction. You say the list of people you've hurt via substance use is growing; you fear destroying all relationships; you consider hard-commit sobriety + cutting off users + relocating; you already flew to a friend to reset. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) That's the ground truth. That is immediate. That is not abstract. In the Naval/Kapil conversation, the starting point is: your **most acute problems are your living reality**—not abstract theory. ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) So from this POV: stop pretending the "main" problem is geopolitical morality or the MtG color wheel. Those may be intellectually stimulating, but they're not the fire in the kitchen. If you want a "Kapil-style" question: **What do you get from substances that you are unwilling to admit you love more than your stated mission?** Not as a moral attack—just as truth. Kapil's claim is essentially: the greatest desire wins, and suppressing creates more inner conflict. ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) ### 4) You're calling it "loneliness," but much of what you describe is *instrumentalization.* You repeatedly describe people in terms of (a) whether they can offer value, (b) reciprocity, (c) whether they're allies in your mission, (d) whether they share your fear/emotion so you feel "normal." ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) That's not "connection" in the human sense. That's *recruitment + regulation of your internal state via other people.* Wanting to live around people who are also "suffering and afraid" about AI risk reads, from this lens, like: "I want my fear mirrored back so I can keep believing in it cleanly." ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) That's not wrong; it's just revealing. Kapil would likely say: you don't want happiness—you want **escape from misery**; and even the attempt to "stop chasing happiness" can be another chase. ([podclips.com](https://podclips.com/ct/6mV5fy)) ### 5) Your "I'm Black, they're Green" model is exactly what Kapil mocks as "appearing intelligent." You use frameworks (MtG colors, ideology sorting, etc.) to reason about people and therapists. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) Kapil has writing where he attacks "mental models" as pseudo-intelligence—i.e., a sophisticated self-image move ("attempt to appear intelligent"). ([kapilguptamd.com](https://www.kapilguptamd.com/2023/03/09/truth-for-the-intelligent-man/?utm_source=openai)) From this POV, the risk isn't "frameworks are bad." The risk is: frameworks become **armor** that prevents you from seeing the simple, embarrassing truths about what you want, what you fear, and what you're avoiding. ### 6) A point where you're unusually honest (and should lean harder into it) You say: - you may not have diagnosed the sources correctly, and rereading may entrench the wrong diagnosis ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) - your unhappiness may function as an internal coercion mechanism toward AI work ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) That's the right direction: not "what's my narrative," but "what function is this inner state serving?" Kapil's standard for "truth" is basically: when you see something truly, **the problem is solved for good**—not managed, not coped-with. ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) So the bar you've set ("I accept I'll be unhappy all of 2026") is, in this frame, suspicious: it can be resignation-as-identity. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) ## One concrete "Kapil-compatible" direction (without turning it into a new prescription) If you keep writing updates, shift the document away from *world-level arguments* and toward *exposure of motives*: - For each relapse / urge / "can't enjoy socializing sober" moment, write: - **What did I want right then?** - **What image of myself was I protecting or building?** - **What was I unwilling to feel without anesthesia?** - **What story did I tell myself to make the act inevitable?** ([nav.al](https://nav.al/kapil)) Not to "improve." To see. (Separately: you mention cyberattacks/violence-adjacent ideas in places; I won't engage tactically with anything illegal or harmful. Also, if you ever cross into clinical depression or feel unsafe, get real-world professional help immediately.) ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) --- ## Paul Graham "useful writing" score (for Samuel's document) PG's definition (paraphrased from widely-circulated excerpts) is: useful writing tells readers something **true and important** they didn't know, as unequivocally as possible. ([fortheinterested.com](https://fortheinterested.com/how-to-write-usefully/)) **Score: 6/10 (moderately useful).** **Why:** - **Truthfulness / candor: high.** The raw admissions about substances harming relationships, loneliness-as-utility, and fear are real data, not polished self-help. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) - **Importance: high for you; medium for others.** A lot is intensely personal or depends on your AI-risk worldview, so portability is limited. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) - **Unequivocal clarity: mixed.** The updates are clear, but the core thesis blends (a) global politics, (b) personal attachment wounds, (c) addiction, (d) identity, making it hard to extract a single "new true thing." ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html)) **To raise it toward 8–9/10:** separate "(1) what I observe happening in me" from "(2) my theories about civilization," and foreground repeated patterns + falsifiable predictions over ideology. If you want, paste the text of the "On judging people" doc you reference and I'll give it the same PG-usefulness score too. ([samuelshadrach.com](https://samuelshadrach.com/raw/text_english_html/personal/main/unhappiness_since_2023.html))text_english/personal/main/love_death_and_robots.md000644 000765 000024 00000002260 15206277372 023634 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-29 # Love, Death and Robots Main - Ways in which I relate to death - I am willing to die to stop ASI from being built. - I am willing to kill enemies to stop ASI from being built. - I am willing to kill my loved ones if they were building ASI, and killing them would stop ASI from being built. - I am willing to kill enemies to protect my loved ones' lives (from any threat, not just ASI). - I have not yet met any other person I am willing to die for. But I can imagine meeting someone like this, atleast in theory. - I am willing to risk low probability of death and significant probability of physical injury to protect my loved ones' lives (but it depends on which loved ones we are talking about here). - Death brings clarity. That which you are willing to die for, is your God. Side Note - "Love, Death and Robots" is such a cool name lol. I could literally name the above note love death and robots, and it would fit. Unfortunately the episodes of the show, while impressive, aren't as impressive as the actual ASI religion. You know what, fuck it, I am renaming the note now. - "Spectacle of the Living Dead" is another cool name idk where I thought it from. text_english/personal/main/all_my_problems_summarised_yet_again_in_simple_words.md000644 000765 000024 00000007327 15177753505 032233 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-15 # All my problems summarised yet again, in simple words Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Thinking aloud, I may not endorse anything here after a lot of thought Main - The people I truly seem to respect are the mass murderers at the AI companies. The people I truly seem to dislike, atleast a little, are the public. - On social media - Biggest problem - I don't feel good about telling the public (who I don't respect) that I like them, or telling them to dislike the mass murderers at the AI companies (who I respect). Unless I do this, it is difficult to become popular - Lots of smaller problems - One bad case scenario if I succeed - literally empowering the far-left in the US to install a communist dictator in power. This seems bad, even if ASI is averted - One bad case scenario if I succeed - will polarise public further and break apart millions of more marriages. Will make people more power-hungry. Maybe this is fine. I feel okay about endorsing people to join an ASI protest even if it means they have to divorce to do so. The situation really is that dire. - On hacking to make whole world transparent - Biggest problem - getting everyone's informed consent to blow open the whole world requires solving the culture war itself, and there's no way in hell that can be done in 5 years. I have thought about ways to accelerate solving this but still, the deadline is too tight, all my best methods will take longer than that. Therefore, I don't feel good about blowing open the whole world. It is true that most people are using a stupid groupthink process to compute whether to give consent or not, and are too risk-averse about this. Even so. - Smaller problems - I want to figure out a way so that everyone can hold stockpiles of zerodays, ensure attack beats defence, but also create a court process that restricts when one can or can't use these. Even after I create all these processes, I am not sure how to get the informed consent though. (to do - think more?) - On hacking to just leak US govt or ASI company redacted information of "abuse" (whatever that means) - Biggest problem - I lack skills and a cofounder. I have to find a cofounder who deeply gets why this makes sense. I think I feel fine, morally, in practice, with doing this. I am fine seeing the secrets myself, without consent, as long as I choose not to leak them. (Again, easy to talk about morality in theory, you won't know until you do it in practice) - I think I should just cold email some hackers here, with full transparency, and see what they think - Smaller problems - I have genuinely no idea what specific info, if leaked, will most persuade the public. My best guesses include leaking the names of people bypassing of specific democratic guardrails, leaking the names of people who are successionists, leaking the names and concerns of people who have considered quitting or had internal concerns but did not finally quit (even if the public thinks their reasons are dumb, it adds up, the concern doesnt necessarily have to be high p doom), leaking proof that AI companies have specific dangerous capabilities (like bioweapons) - Our internal epistemic and moral processes might get compromised, as we face counterattack, or end up assimiliated into russian or indian intelligence agencies. Not having clear internal policy ahead of time could lead me to endorsing something that feels bad for me, or is useless for the goal of stopping ASI. for instance I might be forced (like assange) to adopt a policy of leaking everything with no redactions because I literally dont have capacity for redactions. or the russian/indian govt might try to take decisions on our behalf on which targets to hit. text_english/personal/main/should_I_make_a_failed_assassination_attempt.md000644 000765 000024 00000004275 15177753505 030370 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-09 # Should I make a failed assassination attempt? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - Multiple thoughts from lots of previous ideas combined: - Actually successfully stopping the ASI race via assassinations requires atleast a hundred simultaneous assassinations. Too hard compared to other plans. Maintaining trust, chain of command, etc is hard for private militias. - I think the vibes are too non-violent on all sides. Dario Amodei speeches too peaceful, while he talks of 10-25% probability of civilisational catastrophe, or chernobyl-scale disasters to wake up the public, or country of geniuses in a datacentre in 4 years. Pause AI deepmind protest slogans were so lame. AI employees are so casual about their work, atleast some of them. - Gwern agrees the point of assassinations is often propaganda not actually being effective at maximising kills. - Since I am not an exceptionally good liar, I must become propaganda not create propaganda. I can convincingly persuade others of things only if I am convinced myself. I can spread violent vibes to others, only if I have violent vibes. - The best way to spread violent vibes is not to talk about spreading violent vibes, it is to actually be violent. - Conclusion - I should deliberately make a failed assassination attempt at one of the AI CEOs. Like, take a gun and fire at them in a way that ensures they don't actually get shot. - Atleast the temperature will raise on both sides of the conflict, if I do this. - I'll go to prison for a few years at minimum, that's not actually the main issue with this. I might be ok going to prison if I was convinced this is the most effective thing to do. - Obviously me publicly talking of crimes like this, online, makes it harder for me to succeed without getting caught. - **I still am hoping to find some more effective option, but honestly, the logic checks out to me so far.** - Honestly I think the cyberattack plan is lowkey similar. It is actually perceived by the public as somewhat violent (even though I don't think it is that violent). The very fact I am attempting this has propaganda value, independent of whether I succeed or not. text_english/personal/main/I_am_dreading_going_back_to_india_because_I_am_bored_of_people_there.md000644 000765 000024 00000010011 15177753505 035026 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-06 # I am dreading going back to India because I am bored of people there Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I am dreading going back to India - I think an important part of the problem is just that when I'm travelling, I'm actually curious what is going on inside people's minds, because they're new to me and from a new culture. - Whereas with people in Delhi and Bangalore, my curiosity is completely dead. If I meet yet another casual sex-maxxing corporate slave I will seppuku, and if I met yet another young hindu conservative making-money-for-family-type my first reaction is to wish I lived in a wild west where I could take out a revolver from my pocket and point it at their head. - Or even like, if a random waitress in Bangalore smiles at me, I have already spoken to some waitresses in depth so I already have some sense of what their lives are like and how real or fake the smile is. Whereas if a random waitress in Moscow smiles at me, I genuinely don't know that well what their life is actually like. - I like travel because it exposes me to people who are doing things besides fucking engineering and medical and banking and finance and corporate tech job and whatnot. - It's like, I recently heard the most insane story from some guy at a bar. And then I remembered, how did I even get into this place. And I was like, okay this other person at this completely other place I travelled to bought these clothes for me, hence the bouncer let me in. And then I was like, how did I meet that guy. And then I remembered I visited that place to meet this other person because we had previously met at a festival. And like, I actually love this sort of life. (I've removed all the identifying details here, for privacy reasons.) - You end up drawing very interesting connections between people across cultures when you do stuff like this. Talking to such people satisifies my insatiable desire for novelty in life, and most other sources of novelty dry up very fast, except talking to people. Conclusion - I don't know, I think I should put more effort to meet strangers in Bangalore or Delhi who are outside my usual circle. You technically can meet people from literally any state in India, from a variety of professions, and across socioeconomic classes, in a place like Bangalore. I have done a bit of this, but perhaps I should do a lot more? Side Note - I genuinely don't get what it is like to be these people. If merely looking at these people is enough to make me depressed, imagine what it would be like for me to actually Be them. I don't know man, I think being a bit neuroatypical allows you to walk through walls you don't even realise exist, until you talk to the normies. - I often comment that I suck at networking. And like, maybe this is true for networking with ambitious busy people. Especially ambitious busy people who are corporate slaves themselves. - But when it comes to networking with randos, I think I'm actually fairly decent. Like, if someone sets me a challenge like "go obtain a chinese SIM card in black market" or "get an autograph from a local cricketer" or something like this, I actually think I won't do too bad at it. I'm sure there's people better at me at such tasks too, but yeah. I think this is what I mean by "walking through walls." For instance, one of the first things I would do to get a chinese SIM card is probably go visit some tourist hostels in Bangkok and talk to some Chinese people about it. Or for getting autograph from a cricketer, my first attempt is probably to go find a canteen or store near a cricket ground and just start approaching random people there. To me these just sound like obvious things you should try, but I know some people who won't try stuff like this because of some invisible wall they see. - If this is an actual advantage I do have, maybe I should be aware of it and use it more intentionally. I can imagine this skill being useful for dating, and I can also imagine this skill being useful for extracting information from people. (Both of these seem like goals I have nowadays.) text_english/personal/main/learnings_from_past_month_of_reading_about_politics.md000644 000765 000024 00000037100 15177753505 032033 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-26 # Learnings from past month of reading about politics Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - target audience - strictly myself Background context - I was hesitating working on the plan to cyberattack the US govt and US AI companies and leak their information. I used multiple ways to cope with lack of clarity on such topics. - I wanted to figure out my morality and politics, so that I work on this with more clarity, instead of at half-speed. Hence I started reading even more books. - My views on morality were previously a very Might makes Right view on history. But I was still hesitating acting in line with these views. - Technological offence/defence balances decide the routes to obtain power, people who obtain power are eventually respected by many, and these people then invent rhetoric on morality that justified the routes they took. - In the surveillance/privacy/transparency context, I had a fairly strong view that multiple offence/defence balances around information are shifting towards offence, and most of the world's information is going to come out publicly anyway, and this is more good than bad (although there is bad), and hence I should just act to take advantage of this. - However I noticed I still seemed to losing self-esteem by working on it. Just because you can get away with XYZ, and later invent rhetoric to morally justify it to the public, doesn't mean you'll feel good doing it. I realised I need moral rhetoric to justify it to myself first (not others), and also this had to be in line with my past self and past identity. Morality is part of identity and I can't 180 degree my entire identity overnight. Main learnings from the past month (technically some of these are from preceding months, but whatever) - Personal - Internalising that the world is ending helps me a lot - Death - One way of internalising the world ending (as opposed to treating it as an intellectual game) that I found super valuable is to go to a tall building and look outside, and visualise everyone die. - I visualise people dying in almost every conversation I have nowadays 24x7. - I don't know if I advocate everyone do it, or even future Samuel do it, but it is what I do often nowadays. - It helps me take the stakes seriously. - "Blame yourself, preserve your agency" is this Naval Ravikant quote I take seriously now. - Fuck lesswrong, fuck indian politics, fuck whatever. If everyone else jumps off a bridge doesn't mean I will jump off one too. If the world ends it was my fault. - It helps me connect with people a little bit more. - If other people don't want to take my ASI risk concerns seriously in a conversation, that is now their problem not mine. Most people know jackshit about this topic and hence I don't take their opinions too seriously. - You can hear out my concerns, and then move on to a separate topic, that is fine. - You can hear my concerns, have a respectful disagreement, that is also fine. - But if you don't want to hear my concerns, and you already have pre-conceived notion I am crazy or politically annoying or whatever, then that's it, we are done here, get out of my life, meet me after a few months at best. - Liking people, versus considering them political allies (I learned this some months back itself) - I like some of the people at AI the companies because of shared traits. Atheist, high openness to experience, intellectually curious, high trust, kind, support technology, capitalism and democracy, technical people. However, inspite of that, if they threaten to kill me then I will threaten to kill them first. This is the same way I look at my friends too. If my friend threatened to kill me out of some deranged beliefs in utopia, I'd kill my friend too. - I dislike many of the anti-ASI political demographics. I dislike religion due to a lot of personal experiences I can't share here. I dislike most leftist thought. However, these people are among the biggest demographics in the anti-ASI political coalition. - Self-interest versus greater good - I was quite self-interested in teenage, leaned more altruist in college after my basic needs were fulfilled (loved ones, sufficient money, etc), now again self-interested after realising ASI risk could get me killed. Saving my life again seems more important to me than saving anyone else's life, although I also care non-zero about the latter. - I will feel better about myself if I tell myself I am doing all this for greater good, saving humanity, blah blah, as opposed to saying I am doing it to save my own life. But that doesn't make it true. - I know most people don't want to go extinct or live under permanent dictatorship. However, beyond these basics, I have no fucking clue what most of humanity actually wants, so how can I pretend to represent them? - I know all humans want basics like they want food, shelter, safety from violence, love and respect of loved ones. They want atleast some certainty (but not complete certainty) about their past, present and future. They want free time to pursue "enlightenment", whatever the hell that means to each person. - If I was given access to private diary notes of millions of people, and asked to predict what was instead of them without looking, I would be very bad at predicting it. The basic needs are boring and simple, but humans build a complex web of nuances on top, and I don't think I'd be good at predicting it. - Many ideologies have this idea of "what is in people's best interest, if they knew better, had better experiences, etc". Hinduism might call it escape from reincarnation, Buddhism might call it Enlightenment, Yudkowsky might call it CEV, Marx will say overthrow upper class, etc. I am suspicious of most ideology's answers to this question. I also don't know what is in most people's enlightened interest, and most people themselves don't know what is in their own enlightened interest. People's stated and revealed preferences are both shit, for predicting their actual enlightened interest. - I love violence? - This is a weird thing to say, but at some level, people who are too high-minded idealist and hence non-violent, often irk me. I think Thomas Sowell's contrained versus unconstrained visions helps better explain why too much idealism irks me as a person. Or Viktor Suvorov's reasoning. Or the scriptwriting for the Joker in the Dark Knight. "When the chips are down, these people will eat each other"-type rhetoric. - I have always been a sort of violent person, atleast in the privacy of my mind. Over many years of my life, I have at many times thought of killing people for all sorts of reasons, I just never did it irl because it wasn't necessary to solve the problem. For the first time I am being confronted with a problem big enough that violence seems actually required to solve it. - I am not a sadist or masochist. But I also don't think I have as much aversion to violence as some people around me seem to. I don't have much problem looking at murder or rape footage for example. - Violence being necessary doesn't make it an absolute good. - I think it is important I don't Other or dehumanise my outgroup. "Look at a man in their eyes before you put a bullet through their skull." - I agree with [Duncan Sabien's take on necessary violence](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kJCZFvn5gY5C8nEwJ?commentId=ZthEMkTzE5asg2vej). I think it is important that future Samuel doesn't forget about this. - Political - It is depressing how little progress there has been in political science, and how little contact with reality most people's political beliefs make: - People have been failing to build a world government for a literal century at this point. League of Nations, the UN, even Nehru and Gandhi write about their dreams for world government (atleast until the Indo-China war in 60s) - Significant overlap between 1960s counterculture and Julia Galef's SF Bay Area map of today. Same hedonism, same social justice and environmentalist stuff, similar spread of political ideologies. Anti-nuclear protests in 1950s were just as unpopular then as anti-ASI protests are today, but if you bring in musicians and weed and talk about more normie causes that affect day-to-day life (like sexuality or parent-child relationship or whatever), then the crowd grows much larger. - The Federalist Papers from friggin late 1700s are discussing all the questions that people debate on reddit today. Power to states versus the centre, standing armies versus not, republic versus direct democracy. - My belief in both capitalism and democracy seem to have weakened due to my plans to fix ASI risk, and this makes me sad. I am not yet over it (as of 2026-03-25). - There are levels of belief in capitalism and democracy. - Example of ideological defender of capitalism: Naval Ravikant, Paul Graham. Example of ideological defender of democracy (atleast as per how federalist papers defined it): Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan - Example of ideological defender of capitalism who violated some laws but not the "spirit" of capitalism: Ross Ulbricht. Example of ideological defender of democracy who may have violated some laws but not the "spirit" of democracy: Glenn Greenwald - Examples of capitalists who violate the ideals of free market capitalism, and are happy to purchase politicians and intelligence community members and cement their own monopoly: Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel. Examples of politicians who violate the ideals of democracy: basically every US presidential candidate in last 30 years. - I don't respect the people at the bottom of this list as much, and I will be sad if I also have to become more like them. I'd rather be in the middle category at best. - I might respect myself less as a person. Or, if I successfully change, I might start respecting other people who violate the spirit of capitalism and democracy more, and start respecting people who follow the spirit less as they will look like suckers to me. - I do think that the more people violate the spirit of these ideals, the more they contribute to polarisation, and people on the other side of the political isle also look at the them and choose to violate the spirit in turn. - I have important ideological differences with most of the people in the reference class of "software developers turned activists who used geopolitical arbitrage" - Examples: Aaron Swartz (progressive, anti-copyright), Snowden and Assange (anti-war anti-surveillance anti-US IC), Satoshi (anti-Keynesian), Roman Storm or Wilko Zookox (libertarian), Anna's archive / Alexandra Elbakyan / torrent / napster (anti-copyright), Ross Ulbricht (libertarian, anti-drug law), many youtubers living outside their home country to criticise the regime there (pro-democracy, anti-defamation / pro-free speech). Richard Stallman (deontological anti-everything lmao) - I am not a libertarian or a progressive. I don't have a very strong position on anti-war or anti-surveillance or anti-copyright or anti-taxation or anti-drug regulation or whatever. I have positions on these topics, but they're weaker, and sometimes in direct conflict with other people who have worked on them. (For instance I am a lot more pro-transparency, whereas some of these people are a lot more pro-privacy.) - I have a very strong anti-ASI position. I have built up this position over many years. It makes me a bit sad that I need to devote my life to working on this, instead of something else I care more about. But, I have to do it now, there is no choice. - I also have a strong position in favour of more transparency (and less privacy) in society, both among the elite and the general public. I have built up this position over many years. I see a world with zero privacy as a platonic ideal in the same way I see a world with zero nukes or guns as a platonic ideal or a world with world government federal democracy as a platonic ideal. - I still haven't completely given up hope that ASI risk can be fixed within the moral and US legal constraints of democracy and capitalism, but I don't feel comfortable gambling the fate of all of civilisation on that hope. - See above - I will genuinely dislike myself as a person if I was some high-minded idealist and the world ended as a result. - **Important - think more here** - I dislike most of the people who advocate for violence for instrumental political reasons, such as anarchists and far-left activists. In general, a broad anti-ASI coalition is needed, but it is full of a lot of political demographics I dislike. - My outgroup is powerful people building ASI. My outgroup is **not** all powerful people. I don't want to become one of those journalists with "class war" mindset, who thinks only the upper class deserves to be screwed over. - Interpersonal - Positive-sum versus zero-sum - Many silicon valley billionaires have heuristics that you'll be more motivated to work, and other people will be more motivated to help you, if you work on a positive-sum thing involving creating new wealth or building technology, as opposed to a zero-sum game. - Managing motivation of you and your immediate set of people who will help (cofounder, friends, allies, etc) is one of the most important predictors of whether you succeed or fail. I actually agree strongly with all this. - However, I still think a zero-sum political battle is the only way ASI risk gets fixed. We need to fuck over the guys building ASI, and ensure they lose wealth and power (and status and girlfriends and loved ones and whatnot), and just, generally ensure they suffer. They have to lose power for the anti-ASI people to gain power. - Polarisation - It is straightforwardly true that if I use political violence, then people on the other side will also see this and be inspired to use political violence, and this too will further weaken what democracy and capitalism is still left in the US. - This is well-documented and many political youtubers talk about it, and I should not underestimate the effects of this. Moderate people (who aren't terminally online thinking about politics) are likely to be polarised against you if you use political violence. - If we succeed, we will become powerful and therefore high status via dominance not prestige. In simple words, people will respect us because they fear us, not necessarily because we helped them (although we may have also helped them). This will inspire more people to do zero-sum behaviour to similarly get respect for themselves. - Only the outgroup - I have understood very clearly that I should not be violent against innocent bystanders if I can help it. Only be violent against the outgroup. You lose a lot of trust networks if you are violent against bystanders. - Moral feedback - I have made up my mind that if I go ahead with the cyberattack plan, we have to completely transparent regarding our estimates of how many people we have hurt and why. Most of the public's feedback will be shit, but some of it will be useful. We will be entering a high-stakes adversarial domain, this will cut us off from most feedback including moral feedback, hence we have to get feedback this way. - Books - If someone else is reading this writeup, my top book recommendations to them: - Thomas Sowell - Conflict of visions - Srdja Popovick - Blueprint of revolution - Federalist Papers - I used AI to simplify the english and read it - Richard Rhodes - Making of the atomic bomb - My actual reading list is too long to share here. I also have a lot of books on tech, or on whistleblowers, for example. text_english/personal/main/networking_is_easy_if_youre_a_kissass.md000644 000765 000024 00000002022 15211043561 027133 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-06 # Networking is easy if you're a kissass Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - I considered keeping this post private because it is about a specific person. But I think this person will probably be fine with me writing this particular post. Main - I installed a mind sim of someone I know when I decided to write this post. This might be bad actually. - Lowkey jealous of this person for finding networking far easier than me. - Writing this to remind myself that I should not compare myself to them. Networking is easy if you're a kissass. I would literally rather consider suicide before becoming this sort of person, this is a very old lesson I learned. - Networking for truth tellers is much harder. You have to grind far into diminishing returns before you can succeed. - I am trying to achieve a much harder goal than other people, hence I should not be jealous of them. Play the long game. Don't be jealous of other people's short term outcomes. Your primary competition is your past self. text_english/personal/main/I_could_probably_shoot_everyone_I_have_ever_cared_about_if_I_had_to.md000644 000765 000024 00000003370 15227745310 034776 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-22 # I could probably shoot everyone I have ever cared about, if I had to Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Was reading [this reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1rrwe3/what_moment_completely_shattered_you_ruined_you/) to understand what are the thresholds at which people break, i.e. make major changes to their worldview or plans. - But, reading this is giving me a completely different realisation. Most of the events people have listed are in some way about losing someone they care about. This could be them dying or them cheating on you in some way (romantic or familial or platonic) - I have probably never in my life genuinely cared about someone enough to actually be broken by their loss. - update - I have had unhealthy infatuations back in teenage, but not true liking or love or similar (to the point where that person's loss would break me in some important way). - I'd go further. I probably won't break so easily even if I had to go personally kill everyone I have ever cared about, even loved. The types of things that would break me are probably completely different than this. - At this point this isn't even some big secret. I can even tell people I know about this, in full honesty. I have a very detached sort of caring about people. I don't know how to explain it very well. - Like, my choice to care is also quite driven by rational brain (not emotional brain), and my choice to not care is also quite driven by rational brain. - This actually has absolutely nothing to do about ASI risk. I am just quite detached in general by default. - In some contexts in past, I have deliberately put effort to empathise with people, and I loved doing this. But this is not the default for me. text_english/personal/main/is_this_moral_and_is_this_effective.md000644 000765 000024 00000015326 15177753505 026543 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-21 minor update 2026-03-22 # Is this moral and is this effective? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - **Is this moral?** - The more I read about other people's ideologies, the more I realise how retarded all of political science is. People were having the exact same political debates literal centuries ago, as they are having today. - I skimmed through the Federalist papers, Nehru's writings to Gandhi and on religion, Bhagat Singh's writings, LKY's writings, Cummings' writings on Bismarck, von Neumann's writings on political science, more recently Ben Shapiro's views on US politics from a socially right economic right politically lib lens. - End of the day, morality is something you feel not think. **The blunt answer to "will I murder my loved ones in cold blood to save myself?" is yes.** (Assuming those loved ones were going to kill me otherwise.) - This is something I feel at the core of who I am. - First explain it to them nicely, sure. But if they still remain either ignorant or malevolent, then kill them all. - My past track record indicates that I have considered hurting people around me many times, but I never ended up actually finding it necessary to do. The reason I haven't hurt people around me already is because it is ineffective. The price at which I would sell my self-esteem is very high (literal billions of dollars or large percentage points of extinction risk), and most people around me are too powerless for me to gain anything by hurting them. - **Standing from a building and watching everyone die, or watching everyone I met die, is actually quite effective for me to internalise how big the stakes are.** I should do more of this. - All political ideologies that claim to be for the greater good have messy incomplete ideas of what greater good for everyone looks like. - Most people have no fucking clue what is in the long-term good for themselves, let alone for everyone else. - I feel psychologically better if I tell myself I am doing it for the world, not just for myself. - But also, I shouldn't kid myself - I have no fucking clue what most people want, beyond a simple outside view (most people don't want to die, they want food shelter loved ones etc). - **Is this effective?** - I think my main hesitations to work on the cyberattack plan are in terms of effectiveness, not morality. If it was necessary to do, and I would damage some of my self-esteem to do so, then sure I do it. But, it is still not entirely clear if it is the most effective plan available. - If the anti-ASI political movement has less 10% US voterbase, then my cyberattack plan doesn't help, we are doomed regardless. If the anti-ASI political movement has more than 90% US voterbase, then my cyberattack plan doesn't help, we succeed regardless. If it is in between, then yes, successful leaking of information can shift atleast 5% of US voterbase for sure. - I still wonder if there's other plans that can get me 5% of US voterbase. For instance I have recently been looking into AI-generated music. - It is very hard to know ahead of time which plan will or won't get you how much voterbase. My best heuristics for this are stupid shit like Naval's heuristic that AI gets you more leverage than software, which gets you more leverage than media. Base rates don't matter when you're at the frontier, and AI is shifting all frontiers rapidly. - (Update 2026-03-22) I have decided not to make AI-generated music my life plan for next 5 years, and will not be changing my decision. I actually think music is a way to reach the masses. See Grimes for ASI risk or the main musicians of the 1960s counterculture. However, see again, I hate the masses way too much to work on something like this. It does not match my self-concept at all. I am serious person. I really don't want to be someone who leads the masses who just want to be hedonistic even inside a mass movement (see again, 1960s counterculture, or srdja popovick's book) and becoming a musician means interacting with such people 24x7 too. Also ofcourse, music is extremely competitive (because people are willing to do it unpaid), if you lack conviction that you want to do it, you can't become top 100 on Earth at it. - I still wonder if there's a way to build world government. That would be an even more ambitious plan than my current plan. - People have been failing to build a world government for a literal century at this point. Nehru writes about his dreams for world government. Marxism was obviously an attempt at world government. von Neumann hoped for a world government. - See above, political science has been retarded for literal hundreds of years. - **I still don't understand what are the bottlenecks to effective world government.** - Shared ways of doing sex/family/parenting/etc, as codified by religion, are the primary thing that unite people. - Atheists in India have more in common with atheists in the US. Christians in the US have more in common with christians in Russia. - Many of the world leaders today (US president, Russian president, Chinese premier, UK prime minister) are atheist/agnostic, but need to pretend to be religious for their respective votebases. - This is another factor in favour of the geopolitical arbitrage type stuff I want to do. - It is also a factor to be analysed more carefully, if I or someone else ever makes a plan for world government. You can build orderly government on top of a base of hard power that can threaten violence. And the primary groups that organise and do mass violence are religious (or atheist) groups. - P.S. Coordination aka backfire effects don't matter, as long as you have a well-defined outgroup. - Every mass movement against an outgroup has a non-violent ingroup faction with more people power and a violent ingroup faction with some hard power. Mass movements rely on people power more than hard power, but both types of power have their place. - I'm pretty confident about this claim, but for whatever reason, it is an unpopular opinion in EA/LW spaces. - People use IMO dumb arguments like "if you do X then everyone will do X". And I'm like, no, not everyone will do it, but some people will do it. And yes, I do want some people to do it. I want some people to be violent just like me. - The violent ingroup has propaganda value too, not just actual hard power. - Coordination around violence becomes a much bigger challenge when you don't have a well-defined outgroup. Purity spirals are common, your own ingroup splintering into factions and fighting each other is common, all of this has happened multiple times in the past, this is not some new problem the anti-ASI people are facing. text_english/personal/main/sports_are_the_most_useless_hobby_possible.md000644 000765 000024 00000001344 15247022244 030212 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-05 # Sports are the most useless hobby possible Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I was recently commenting that music and dance are useless, as compared to shooting or driving or massage or similar. - But honestly, the maximally useless hobby is sports. It only satisfies desire for ape tribe 1 to beat tribe 2. - If your tribe is stuck in the woods, being an expert at football or basketball is not going to help you get out. I don't think the muscle memory (of ankles and wrists) transfers that strongly from one skill to another, although it does transfer somewhat. - Update - I take this back. I am incorrect. The muscle memory does in fact transfer atleast somewhat. text_english/personal/main/naval_ravikant_on_political_transparency.md000644 000765 000024 00000000653 15177753505 027645 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-24 # Naval Ravikant on political transparency Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Holy shit he agrees with me. Lol. Not on the cyberattack stuff but that politicians should livestream themselves. - All this time I was frustrated that we maybe disagreed on this point, but I'm surprised how much we agree. - [Link to Naval on political transparency](https://www.navalmanack.com/secret-sections/navals-predictions) text_english/personal/main/X_I_played_100_games_of_bullet_chess_while_angry_and_Y_dropped_150_elo.md000644 000765 000024 00000000602 15222757607 034744 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-06 # X: I played 100 games of bullet chess while angry and Y: Dropped 150 elo Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Dropped from ~1650 lichess bullet rating to ~1500. 1+0 timer. - Empirical evidence that anger worsens your decision-making. Yes, it is true that bullet chess uses different part of your brain that long-term planning, but still. text_english/personal/main/did_aaron_swartz_commit_suicide_because_of_his_girlfriend.md000644 000765 000024 00000003243 15177753505 033150 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-11 # Did Aaron Swartz commit suicide because of his girlfriend? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - [Link to The New Yorker article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/03/11/requiem-for-a-dream) - Few days back, I was saying I should find a girlfriend who is okay with prospect of me going to prison. - I don't know how much Aaron Swartz' decision to commit suicide was influenced by his girlfriend testifying against him. Might be worth pulling up the actual court record to check. update - apparently he found another partner after this. still doesnt answer my Q though - Quinn Norton started relationship with Aaron 2007. (presumably first relationship? Aaron was age 21+-1 I think) Quinn testified against Aaron 2011. Aaron and Quinn broke up 2011. Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman and Aaron started relationship in 2011. Aaron committed suicide 2013. - quinn was queer and anarchist-leaning, taren worked on many climate orgs. side note - taren now working on golden gate institute that is focussed on AI timelines and stuff. they have impressive advisor list. [The Curve](https://thecurve.goldengateinstitute.org) seems very impressive. I'm personally not interested in talking to AI company employees because they're my outgroup. But I can see why people would value something like this. - also TIL aaron swartz and holden karnofsky frequently talked to each other update - ross ulbricht's girlfriend julia vie also broke up and testified against ross, for increasing involvement in silk road - honestly I should go get the relationship history of every single major software developer turned activist. directly relevant to the type of work I want to do Big if True text_english/personal/main/can_ham_radio_exam_be_cleared_with_just_10_days_preparation.md000644 000765 000024 00000000424 15250730306 033225 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-11 # Can ham radio exam be cleared with just 10 days preparation? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - There is only one way to find out. - Time to listen to morse code 8 hours a day like a full-on schizophrenic. - Let's fucking go main/X_attended_one_week_full_of_meetings_with_friends_Y_it_was_meh_but_I_should_do_this_anyway.md000644 000765 000024 00000004130 15222763470 041615 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal2026-06-28 # X: Attended one week full of meetings with friends. Y: It was meh but I should do this anyway Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Attended one week full of meetings with friends. Forced myself basically. - My speaking-to-listening ratio has gone down by a lot. Almost nothing seems worth truly engaging with. In most conversations I just provided minimum engagement to keep the conversation running and show that I am actually listening that's it. I am surprised how little this affected the conversations. Most people just want to yap about unimportant crap. - I don't trust most of these people's judgement on important topics, and I don't see any value in trying to change their mind on most things. So now I don't even bother. Just listen lol, they just want someone to listen I guess. Although beyond a point I'm unsure if they even want that. It varies person to person too. - Some moments of these meetings actually felt kinda ridiculous. Like, I am just wishing, I hope I get to see these people again, I hope they don't die, I hope this isn't our last meeting. And in contrast some of the stuff they talked felt so ridiculously unimportant. But like, fine, whatever, maybe this is what I signed up for. I have no right to complain. Learning from this - My neuroticism is reduced by a lot. I should have atleast two meetings per week, preferably with friends, preferably atleast one meeting that also has women. None of this makes me happy, none of this gives me much value professional, it is complete useless crap but maybe I should do it anyway. Being isolated and neurotic is significantly worse. - I am capable of keeping my rage under control enough to actually listen and not lash out at people. For now. I still have fair bit of suppressed rage, it even makes it difficult to speak sometimes, I am that angry. But also I am capable of keeping it in check, for now. - People understand my situation atleast to a minimum extent, and they're genuinely like fine, okay, whatever. I have temporarily given up on trying to change all these friends' minds about anything. text_english/personal/main/I_want_to_surround_myself_with_people_who_are_transparent_in_public.md000644 000765 000024 00000001437 15177753505 035334 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # I want to surround myself with people who are transparent in public Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I still strongly believe that transparency good, privacy bad. I straightforwardly think that a significant amount of suffering in the world could be erased if everyone had less privacy. - There are so many important questions whose answers can only be obtained if people are public about important things. Why is sex a private activity? Why are you only willing to talk about relationship with parents once you reach a breaking point and it is extremely bad? Why do people consider info they share with their partner private? - I think there are atleast some people in the world who recognise the benefits of more transparency, and I want to surround myself with such people. PaxHeader/in_the_end_there_is_only_power_save_yourself_do_not_expect_anyone_to_lift_even_a_finger000644 000765 000024 00000000251 15250254344 042645 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main139 path=text_english/personal/main/in_the_end_there_is_only_power_save_yourself_do_not_expect_anyone_to_lift_even_a_finger_to_help_you.md 30 mtime=1788958948.404393726 in_the_end_there_is_only_power_save_yourself_do_not_expect_anyone_to_lift_even_a_finger_to_help_yo000644 000765 000024 00000002115 15250254344 043116 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-09 # In the end there is only Power. Save yourself. Do not expect anyone to lift even a finger to help you Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - Rhetorical / rant post, not aiming to be 100% factually accurate. Main - In the end there is only Power. Save yourself. Become permanent global dictator if that's what it takes. - Nobody is coming to save you. Not your parents, not your spouse, not your therapist, not your teacher, not your community, and sure as shit not your friends. All these people are creatures of habit and poisoned by ideology. Nobody can stare the Truth in the face, let alone have the will to do what needs to be done. - Nobody saved me from the hell that was my childhood. And nobody is going to save me from the hell that is an ASI takeover. - Naval Ravikant is unfortunately right about this too. - Do not expect your loved eyes to lift even a finger to help you. They are all poisoned by ideology and their own paternalising notions what counts or does not count as help. They are self-interested in their own way. - Save yourself. text_english/personal/main/I_believe_in_the_power_of_incredible_amounts_of_violence.md000644 000765 000024 00000007070 15231574023 032712 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-27 # I believe in the power of incredible amounts of violence Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - This is a rant post. Main - Twist the knife where it hurts. - I wish people understood the amount of grief I feel, that we cannot just kill everyone building ASI and fix the problem this way. If everyone building ASI was actually mass murdered and the AI race stopped as a result, I would take an entire year off of my life just to rejoice our victory. I'd want to create art about the glorious battle. The fact that we probably won't get this victory makes me deeply upset. - I wish more people could relate to this. - I want to push the Overtown window such that mass murdering everyone building ASI is considered a **mild** strategy. - At this point, threats of torture and astronomical suffering are what count to me as a significantly violent move. Like, if I promised that when I come to power and actually build an aligned ASI, I will inflict astronomical suffering on the people racing to build misaligned ASI today, as retaliation for what they did. - (If anyone is reading this post, no, I am not actually promising to inflict astronomical suffering on them. This is a rant post.) - Your friends are working day and night to build a bomb that blows up everyone on the planet. The highest positions of power and status of our civilisation are governed by those who build a bomb to blow up everyone on the planet. They are nakedly, shamelessly, openly telling us that they are risking the destruction of all life on Earth. You should be ashamed to be a member of this species if this is what the representatives of your species are doing. Wake the fuck up. - AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA - Accept that these people will never understand. - Accept that people make the choice of violence versus non-violence not based on what actually works, but based on dumbfuck heuristics like "violence feels bad" and "I just want to live in my tiny little social circle of people as braindead as myself, people who understand sweet fuckall about how the world works, let alone have the courage to do anything to save it." Main 2 - Interacting with more people is just making me bury up my resentment somewhere inside, where I don't openly show it to people. It is not obvious I am becoming any less resentful. I totally would kill all the people I have recently met, if there was a good reason to do so. - This is a bit surprising to me. I somehow assumed that interacting with people will mean you will empathise with them more. And in a limited sense, yes this is true. If someone tells me about their dad dying or something, yes I do relate atleast a little. But also, I can feel that, and yet at the same time be like, okay if you were building an ASI I'd shoot your mom too lol. - Maybe this is a good thing? - I know there are a lot of therapy-brained retards who would be like "this doesn't sound healthy" or whatever. - But like, my goals are I want to be capable of incredible amounts of violence, but I also want to be capable of love and good relationships. - I want to be capable of feeling my emotions, and analysing things rationally. In the end I trust my rational brain more than emotions, emotions are often misleading. Limbic system is too monkey-brain short-term-oriented. Prefrontal cortex is needed to play the long-term game. - Given that these are my goals, it actually doesn't sound bad that I am able to empathise with people to a non-zero degree, while also totally acknowledging that if the incentives shift I would personally be killing the very same people. text_english/personal/main/I_still_havent_fully_fixed_sunlight_or_exercise.md000644 000765 000024 00000003723 15205345226 031150 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-26 ## Update - Today was day one of higher intensity of exercise. That felt surprisingly good lol. I precommit to doing atleast 3 days per week for 3 months. - I will make notes around 2026-08-31 to see how it went. - update - holy fuck I'm actually surprised even 2 hours later the high is still there 2026-05-25 # I still haven't fully fixed sunlight or exercise Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Fact: I made notes some months back indicating my room is at decent level of sunlight, but far from optimal. I could find a room with much more sunlight. - Fact: I made notes some months back indicating I successfully do a bare minimum amount of exercise, but far from optimal. I could increase intensity of exercise. - Fact: I still haven't acted on either of these. - Why? - The sunlight thing is just, I like my room a lot actually. I am happy to have stayed in one place successfully for so long, given I've otherwise been quite nomadic. I am unhappy about the prospect of vacating my room, and shifting yet again. - The exercise thing, I don't know. Actually travelling to a gym seems too much work. I could keep weights in my room, yes, it seems way better. Another issue is that I love living in a PG and I hate managing my own kitchen, maid etc, and I am also a bit skeptical of protein shakes. - Okay so I have emotional blockers on both of these things, that's why I haven't acted on either. - Note to self - actually fix - I like my room. I don't want to leave. Leaving actually makes me feel sad. Like, a lot. I have enough things to cry about, I don't want to also have to cry about leaving my room. - I think the exercise thing is a lot easier to fix. I will buy some weights today, and purchase the protein stuff today itself. That will itself trigger me into actually acting. Lmao, I think I am already in enough suffering that "go lift some weights" barely even registers as additional suffering, it just feels normal.text_english/personal/main/I_hope_the_girl_with_victorian_flower_language_prompt_matches_with_me.md000644 000765 000024 00000002412 15220022720 035517 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-28 # I hope the girl with the victorian flower language prompt matches with me Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Pre - Completely random thing that I felt like documenting - Statistically speaking it is unlikely this specific person (or any specific person) will match ofcourse. Also I hope this info isn't specific enough to be usable for doxxing her, although I vaguely suspect it might be enough. Main - I love this lol. It is surprisingly specific and surprisingly meaningful. - I love the idea of meeting not as often but doing something meaningful when you do meet. - I love the idea of having symbols to describe your emotions instead of describing everything in words. - I love subtlety but with a sufficiently specified code that people don't confuse each other or leave the atypicals out lmao. - I love the idea that people centuries ago also felt the same emotions we did, and some random girl on hinge actually seems to care about this. Otherwise I somehow default to assuming no one actually reads history, everyone just has their cached political ideology in their brain just like I do (obviously false assumption). - Lol after writing this post I realise it deserved a better reply than the one I gave her. - Good night text_english/personal/main/my_room_sucks.md000644 000765 000024 00000000564 15201364444 022176 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-14 # My room sucks Main - Again starting to feel unhappy - Note to self - shift room - The room is claustrophobic because there's a chaotic mess of people outside, and interacting with people feels bad. I want a place where I can roam around and be alone in nature. - Other people can't make me happy, but if I spend time with myself maybe I can, who knows. text_english/personal/main/dont_ask_yourself_are_you_okay_all_the_time.md000644 000765 000024 00000001615 15177753505 030325 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-09 # Don't ask yourself "are you okay" all the time? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I seem to not be doing very well in life. So I am often carefully trying to track what actually makes me feel better and what doesn't. - More than one person has pointed out that maybe this behaviour itself is making me feel worse. - It is true that happy people aren't generally asking themselves if they are happy, because they don't need to. It is primarily unhappy people who ask themselves this question. - One of the ways to be happy is to literally be in a flow state. - Maybe the solution is to ask yourself less frequently? Like, pre-commit to check again after one week or one month or something, but try not to ask yourself this question every waking moment. - I don't think this solution will work for me as of literally today (2026-02-09), but it is worth keeping at back of mind I guess text_english/personal/main/I_liked_an_event_I_attended_today.md000644 000765 000024 00000001507 15210070155 026033 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-03 # I liked an event I attended today Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [All notes about this event are private. This post is a pointer to the private notes.] Meta note - This is incredibly annoying. Often my negative comments are about groups. This particular group XYZ sucks for ABC reasons. Often my positive comments are about individuals. I appreciate this specific individual Alice for PQR reasons. However I feel more free to publicly share my comments about groups, and feel more need to keep private my comments about individuals, because that is how privacy norms in society work. As a result, most of my public notes are negative and I just stare at my negative notes. - Conclusion - I need to start organising my private notes atleast as properly as I organise my public notes. text_english/personal/main/dating_has_bad_feedback_loops_and_is_personalised.md000644 000765 000024 00000001251 15207333312 031307 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-01 # Dating has bad feedback loops and is personalised Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I think I understand most of the generic stuff about dating. The problem is anything beyond that is super personalised. Only people who are similar to you **and** successful at dating are in a position to give good advice. Otherwise it is pretty hard to find one-size-fits-all advice that works for everyone. - Even the most basic advice people give me I'm like, wait, why should I trust this advice? Is this person similar to me? Have they successfully kept a relationship they made this way for 5 years? And if not then why should I follow it? text_english/personal/main/this_will_never_get_better_on_its_own.md000644 000765 000024 00000001674 15177753505 027163 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-16 # This will never get better on its own Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - In 2022, I would have assigned P(ASI by 2030) = 15%. In 2026-03, I am now giving P(ASI by 2030) = 25%. - The difference is only 10 percentage points. However my emotional state is markedly different. - I think one of the biggest changes is the realisation that this is not getting better on its own. - Capabilities have gone up a lot and the whole EA/LW ecosystem has achieved not much, by comparison. The russian roulette doesn't end in 2030, it's just going to keep repeating every 5 years from there on. - Unless there is a prolonged AI winter for literal decades, the funding and research won't just dry up on its own. - Even if we were literal one year away from ASI, it is possible that the public is asleep. Whether they are awake depends on whether someone put in the effort to wake them up. I can't even trust that this will happen on its own. text_english/personal/main/I_dont_think_I_am_being_paranoid.md000644 000765 000024 00000012251 15177753505 025674 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-14 # I don't think I am being paranoid Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - Speaking aloud, and I haven't fully thought it through - Target audience - My mind simulation of atleast some of my friends - Yes, I have gotten some actual sleep and food and stuff now, and I am sober now, although my sleep schedule is still quite off Main - My mind simulation of atleast one person I have met says that some of my recent posts reek of paranoia - for instance my claim that Sam Altman will personally track me down and find a way to stop me. - Here are some data points for why I don't think this is paranoia. - I am one of the very few people (possibly the only person) on Earth to write (what I think is) a high quality public guide for how to leak classified info against US govt, when US govt colludes with AI companies. I have messaged lots of people at these companies and I have proof (I can't reveal) that atleast some of them have read it. I have spoken to a non-zero number of people working at these companies. I have spoken to a non-zero number of people who turned down job offers from these companies. - I am one of the few people openly writing about the pros and cons of assassinating AI company CEOs. I know lots of people shitpost and edgelord on social media about assassinating different leaders. Again, the relevant factor is high quality. (My assassination post is not yet that high quality but I can increase the quality if I spend more time on it.) - I know lots of technical people just have a respect for competence and high quality. That alone is a reason they may reshare and further broadcast stuff I do. - I am one of the first few people on Earth to organise a hunger strike against the AI companies. I have interviewed people who have already been sued and arrested by the AI companies. - EA/LW spaces are already fairly low trust. Some of the senior people at Anthropic or CEA seem openly malevolent and borrowing from the Ray Dalio playbook for how to gossip information. (Have you read it? If no please go read it then come back to me.) Some of the junior people also have trust issues and also use gossip networks to (IMO unsuccessfully) protect themselves from getting screwed over. People like Oliver Habryka are openly telling everyone that they want to play this role of publicly investigating everyone, and I have spoken to such people too. Some such people end up with a generalised distrust in everyone, which is not actually productive. I have met atleast a few people like this, hence I get it. (At a human level I get it. At a professional level, this level of distrust achieves not that much.) Anyway my point with all this is that I'm aware that these gossip networks can directly reach members of the US intelligence community only 2 or 3 degrees of connection away from me. - I have already had conversation with atleast a few important people whose identities I can't reveal. (Not politician or billionaire-level important. But also not unimportant.) This again tells me that if I continue on my current life path, I will probably reach a lot more such people soon. - The reason I am not increasing my opsec level and going fully anonymous (as many people have recommended to me) is that I don't think it can actually be done. I think many of the people giving me this sort of advice haven't actually thought it through. - Long-term anonymity against nation state level actors is more-or-less hopeless for a long list of reasons, the biggest one being that maintaining a social circle that can successfully isolate from rest of society that hard, and yet achieve important goals, while actively being pursued by nation state actors, can't actually be done. You can go read the history of a long list of groups that have tried. I have read the backstories and blogs of almost every important software developer turned activist who has tried to do something like this. - The internet has made all of planet Earth a global village. There is only so far you can get by trying to pre-compute everything in your head. - So many people in EA/LW spaces I meet seem like they're obsessed with precomputing other people's reactions to them and protecting their worthless reputations. Because long-term anonymity is not possible (for non-powerful people like me), long-term precomputation processes are also not possible. How do I explain to people in simple words that if they are not a billionaire or a politician or attempting to become one or attempting to directly fight one - then their reputations are worthless. None of you have any actual power, none of you are on track to acquiring actual power and therefore your reputations are worthless. $10 million is not actual power because what is the use of $10 million when the Machine God wakes up and eats the Earth. Are you fucking stupid or what? - Since the internet has made all of planet Earth a global village, that means I am trapped in this hell with you. If I am trapped in this hell with you, I may as well also make loud and clear that you are also trapped in this hell with me. - If I am to die due to ASI, I will go out loudly with a bang. I will not stay still and die quietly. That is not who I am. text_english/personal/main/on_judging_people_general_version.md000644 000765 000024 00000050732 15177753505 026254 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-19 ## Update - **I no longer take responsbility for updating this document. My views on "judgment" have changed since I wrote this. Check the unhappiness since 2023 document instead.** --- 2026-02-11 minor update 2026-02-12 ## Update - I wrote the original post yesterday (2026-02-10) with barely 12 hours sleep in last 84 hours. I finally got some actual sleep and you have no idea how much better it feels. I think lack of sleep might have made my phrasing a bit pessimistic, but I still endorse all the conclusions I made. - Conclusions I endorse as of today (2026-02-11) - EA/LW and ASI risk - I didn't realise the extent to which EA/LW spaces in SF have become low trust, and being exposed to this has hurt me. Like, I always knew at an intellectual level that in professional life people have low trust in each other because ASI risk, and conflicting strategies for tackling it, and also general lack of trust that other people can be given power instead of you personally having the power. All this I already knew. What has now happened is that I've actually managed to network my way into some of these people's lives, atleast online, and get video calls with many people, and I'm realising how this emotionally affects them and me as well. - See also: Moxie Marlinspike's heuristic for career advice. "Don't calculate galaxy brain theories of change but just look at the reference class of other people who tried similar things, in-person and up close, to see if this affects their relationships or actually gets them happiness or meaning." - I think I need atleast a few high bandwidth connections with people in these spaces. And not just with all the losers sitting back in India along with me. Well okay I don't literally mean losers, but more like, people who aren't ready to do what it will take to actually fix the damn problem of ASI risk. I think there are strong selection effects going on, obviously SF is going to select for the most ambitious people, and obviously Bangalore or Delhi is more going to select for a) people who just want casual relationships because Indian generational trauma or some shit, and b) people who have either burned out from or were never interested in pursuing true ambition. Yes, sorry, that is just yet another judgment I'm making, low confidence opinion. - Dating - For atleast a majority of people on the date me directory, I still have very low confidence that most of either the hard boundaries or the soft preferences that people are expressing here are things they would endorse on reflection. Like, that doesn't mean I go violate all their expressed boundaries, but also it doesn't mean I trust that what they're doing is good for them. I especially feel this for political preferences (leftists who only want to date other leftists), but I also even feel this for basic dating preferences like "are you kind, emotionally stable, ambitious, etc." All of these words are fugazi and maybe you don't actually understand any of these things well, or who you would actually like, really well. ("You" refers to the person writing down these preferences about themselves.) I also don't really understand all the people who say they want to date someone who has gone to therapy. As a highly ambitious person myself, I found a lot of therapy extremely unhelpful. I suspect most therapy is unhelpful not just for me, but for most truly ambitious people in general. Most therapists are Losers too. My three reference classes for what true ambition looks like are a) becoming a self-made billionaire like Patrick Collison or Paul Graham or similar b) become a politician like Modi or Nehru or Lee Kuan Yew or Trump c) software developers turned activists who then fight against govts or corporations. examples - assange, swartz, snowden, satoshi, stallman, etc etc (it's a long list) - I do still think a good solution is to just try to open high bandwidth connections with some of these people, and interrogate them hard to understand where these boundaries and preferences are actually coming from. - But also, like, fixing dating life is not my number one priority right now. - Morality - I am generally someone who reads very widely. But especially so now because of ASI risk, I think desparation [1] of not being able to solve the problem is forcing me to read very widely. - **I think this is making me read lots of conflicting moral intuitions that different people have, too quickly, and this too is hurting me.** - For instance, a lot of religious people and a lot of psychologists have intuitions that are against only keeping relationships based on how much (usually financial/political) power you expect to get in return, and towards arranged marriage and community and lifelong relationships. I am actually sympathetic to many of these concerns, but I also think actually taking these things to their natural conclusion means you become a Loser of History. A lot of these people have been consistently losing the fight for power in society for literal thousands of years, and I want nothing to do with a life strategy that has been Losing this badly. - Very specifically, I am noticing that a lot of people only value me as a person, as a function of how much power I can get them, and vice versa I also only want to spend time with a lot of people as a funtion of how much power they can get me. This is just capitalism 101, and most people navigate it by trying to build reciprocity and shit. - Because I am getting disconnected to almost literally everyone, reading about these things is damaging me. - A lot of leftist activists have intuitions that climate change and environmental degradation and capitalism are literally end times, and holy fuck I can't underestimate how naive these people are. "Like, not only are you wrong about climate change and about capitalism, but you're also wrong about the consequences of your own strategy. Suppose you engage in revolutionary social movement to fight existing untrustworthy politicians. If you succeed, your own movement's leaders are going to become the new untrustworthy politicians next. I think this is straightforwardly true of people like Nehru or Nelson Mandela or MLK or whatever. If you replace the Britishers screwing you over with Nehru and Gandhi, you are not allowed to be surprised if Nehru and Gandhi screw you over next. (I don't even want to take the examples of actual leftists coming to power here, because the worst examples are communists dictatorships that kill millions of people). I am not saying this means all revolutionary social movements are bad, but please have some basic awareness that this is what such movements achieve." - A lot of silicon valley activists like swartz or ulbricht or whoever, who ultimately justify their work with libertarian-leaning intuitions. I am very sympathetic to libertarianism, but also, some of the solutions I want to implement are explicitly anti-libertarian, and that means I can't fully rely only on the moral intuitions of these people. I also think some (not but not yet all) of these people are also ultimately Losers of History, despite how much courage and ambition they have shown. - A lot silicon valley startup founders and billionaires, who basically endorse you become a self-made billionaire. I am somewhat sympathetic to a lot of their writings. I actually think these people are highly intelligent, like, not just book smart, but they also understand how power works - like how to establish trust in an environment of power seekers, how speech creates status hierarchies, and so on. I find it hard to trust their moral intuitions fully too. a) A lot of these people don't believe in ASI is possible soon, which is to me obviously an insane conclusion and tells me "your brain is also maybe broken in other ways and I shouldn't defer to you too much" b) Atleast some of these people either don't understand politics and geopolitics, or they choose not to write (or even talk) about it for instrumental reasons. And because they don't talk about it, it is hard for me to tell whether it's instumental reasons or whether they literally don't know jack shit about it. - **By far, some of the biggest Losers here are some (not all) of my own irl friends.** I only consume substances with them because I find it hard to cope with everything else. As of today my actual reaction to these people is like, I don't know if you are a bad person, maybe you're not. And even if you are, atleast some of you can be forgiven. What I do know is I want all of you people to fuck off from my life as fast as is humanly possible, because I have a much bigger game to play here. - I think it is straightforwardly true I need to cut off some (but not all) of my friends here. For others I want more bandwidth to understand them better. - Morality of cyberattacks - I think I specifically seem to endorse cyberattacks against lots of different people, to open up the world quickly and make it more transparent. I think endorsing these ideas, while also having atleast some sense for how many people I am going to kill or hurt as a result, is directly making me unhappy. - In theory, I want blood on my hands. Deontologists and virtue ethicists are obviously Losers, and I need to be atleast somewhat consequentialist. In practice, I am like "holy fuck that's a lot more blood than I initially thought, and this makes me feel worse than I initially thought" Priorities - My first priority right now is to go schedule calls with lots of friends, create high bandwidth connections, interrogate them - My second priority is to figure out some solution to the substance abuse issue. I don't yet know how hard this will be or how long this will take. First priority and second priority are interlinked. I would find it easier to stay sober if I had some actual irl friends who were also sober, and I didn't think all their moral intuitions were broken, and I was able to actually connect with them as people. - After this I'll think of third priority. My guess is I need to figure out the morality of cyberattack thing, and why my intuitions run so anti-libertarian despite many of the people I truly respect being very libertarian-leaning software developers turned activists. "If something causes you pain, look at it, not away." - Fixing the dating stuff is lower on my priority list right now. (But also I do need to actually get to it and not postpone it forever. I don't think 'dont try to date for the next 2 years' is a great strategy for me either, because of many first-hand experiences in the past.) [1] Side Note - On desparation - I think I relate a lot to the kind of desparation that people like Paul Graham and Aaron Swartz talk about. You attack a big problem and it doesn't budge, and you attack ten times more, and it still doesn't budge, and then you need to not lose your own composure or motivation, but go attack it yet again. "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I want to be like these people. - I also relate to the kind of desparation that Marlinspike or Yudkowsky talk about, where you understand a problem is hopeless but you go attack it anyway, because what else is the point of life. Ultimately though, I want to become a Graham or a Swartz, not a Yudkowsky or Marlinspike. Just because none of you fuckers could find solutions to these big picture problems (and let's be real, they are really hard) doesn't mean none exist. I appreciate your honesty in telling me how hard the problem is, and also in your honesty in telling me why you're pessimisic anything can be done. It is important to be honest that you think nothing will work, if you think nothing will work. But also now get out of my way, I am going to take a shot at cracking the problem regardless. 2026-02-10 # On judging people, general version Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Recently I seem to have one post where I judge people for being too consumerist or hedonist or whatever. - I seem to have another post where I judge people for being too uninterested in learning about ASI risk. - I seem to have another post where I notice atleast some women judging me, and noticing myself judging them back in return, in a dating and feminism discussion context. - I'm starting to realise that there are actually some deeper commonalities across all these situations. First problem - I am now fairly confident that one reason I was earlier lashing out at others (atleast online, if not in-person), was that I was personally feeling threatened. - Or atleast, I was noticing myself increasingly incapable of feeling connected with others. Then my brain immediately subsconciously reacted violently to me noticing that (because maybe it should? being disconnected from literally everyone for a suffiently long time period basically means I will kill myself). And then my brain was generating implicit assumptions that 'oh, you have to care about this thing along with me too, otherwise I am literally going to get killed'. But not, killed by ASI, but killed by social disconnection. - From what I read online, activists in general seem like an unhappy set of people. Like, what I just experienced few days back wasn't at all an unusual experience. (Maybe the combination of substance abuse, and being a judgemental unhappy activist is a little rare, but each of these two problems in separation, is very common in society.) - I think having confidence that atleast some set of people will like me no matter what, gives me a lot more ability to tolerate lots of other people disliking me, or there being lot of ambiguity on whether lots of other people dislike me or not. - It's only when the number of people that I predict like me starts dropping close to zero, that this really triggers me. - I am fairly confident in this prediction, because I have also experienced the same thing many years back in the past, in atleast a couple different contexts. Second problem - I said that I might be judging people because I don't understand people well. That is true. But also, I am extremely suspicious that people themselves don't understand themselves well. - If you say that you like X, or your boundaries are Y, or whatever, I want to actually probe hard on those claims ten times in, to understand how exactly you came to those conclusions. How do you actually know that? If I show you a counterexample will you actually change your mind on this? - I'll give a concrete example. Suppose Alice says that she likes "emotionally mature" people, whatever the hell that means, and decides to romantically reject me, Samuel, based on that criteria. Suppose I find some Bob and introduce him to Alice. Alice agrees at first that Bob is "emotionally immature". But later Alice ends up falling in love with Bob anyway. At the end of this, is Alice willing to be honest with me and say "I am sorry, I confidently made wrong predictions who I like and maybe I pushed you away too soon as a result" - (update 2026-02-12 the context in which Alice rejected Samuel matters. I mean, imagine if Samuel self-describes as "emotionally immature" on a date me doc and Alice reads this and rejects Samuel, and Alice and Samuel have never actually met otherwise, and know nothing about each other as people.) - Maybe Alice does in fact have some method of predicting accurately who she likes, that I am completely unaware of. But also, I will believe it when I see it. - I think this is an actual experiment I need to run with lots of people I know atleast somewhat well, in-person or over video call. Third problem - You can extend this further to ensuring your relationships last long-term, after initially falling in love or whatever. - For example, if you say that you want a casual relationship and that this is what will make you happy, how can I trust that this is what you actually want? As in, if we were in a relationship, you won't later become attached and say that you want something long-term. - On the other extreme, if you say you are ready to unconditonally commit to me for life, how can I trust that you are even capable of this? How do you yourself know that this is possible to do in practice (without ofcourse, ending up stuck in an unhappy marriage for life). - This increasingly feels to me like an unsolved problem for all of civilisation, it's not just about figuring out your personal preferences deeply. What stressors our relationship will face in future is a property not just of how the two of us behave, but also the external world. Why am I so suspicious? - My actual felt sense for this is "something, something, simulations all the way down" - One way you can approach this is to just do a bunch of hit and trial and then project that experience further. Maybe in the past you fell in love with someone who has green earrings and a love for reading and a liberal leaning and a traumatic childhood. And now you start projecting that oh, probably what you liked most about them is the fact that they loved reading, and therefore you want to find another partner who also loves reading. - How do you know that it was not the green earrings or the traumatic childhood that caused you to be attracted to them? How did you actually eliminate this hypothesis? Did you even explicitly track these hypotheses in the first place? - And yes, mind space is very large, maybe the set of people you can feel connected to does not neatly correlate with this one attribute. Have you actually met lots of people who love to read, across lots of different contexts? And have you actually met lots of people who don't love to read, across lots of different contexts? Why do you feel so confident extrapolating from just one or two datapoints? Where is this confidence coming from? - Another thing people definitely seem to do in practice is to implicitly defer to all sorts of people, when reaching these conclusions. This just creates more simulation levels. You might be deferring to some spiritual guru Mr X on this. And you might neither know why you actually like Mr X, nor whether Mr X's advice has any objective evidence backing it, and so on. Am I jealous? - Am I jealous that some people are having lots more sex than me, that maybe they actually enjoy? Or am I jealous that some people actually do seem to understand their preferences way better than I do mine? - Maybe? - I mostly just want to figure out what is actually happening here at the object-level first, before letting myself feel all these second-order reactions. Why am I looking for such certainty? - I don't actually know - One reason is possibly that I have gotten rejected multiple times in online context, and I actually find it difficult to track what's going on? Like, most people won't actually give you feedback after rejecting you (which I lowkey understand), and even the few people that do, ugh well let's just say there's a bunch of problems there too, which I maybe can't share online. - I don't think the online dating stuff was trigger for recent problems I faced though, the immediate trigger was substance use yet again, and a bunch of people irl not taking me seriously enough when I said that no I dont want to continue on this path. - Maybe it's all of the above? Lots of situations over last few months of me consistently losing track of what the hell is actually going on inside other people's minds, both in professional life and in personal life, both online and irl. So now I almost want to go the other extreme and almost do a police-like interrogation of people lmao. Like, please just cough up as much as info about what's in your head as is humanly possible for you to, and also after that I am going to sit and interrogate you with specific questions, and only then I'll start to believe any of it. P.S. I realise all the examples I used here were around dating. But I don't think dating is the thing I need to fix most urgently right now. It's more of - why I do seem to be so judgmental of almost everyone who comes near me. P.P.S. Holy fuck, Habryka was right? When he wrote his recent article called Paranoia, I didn't realise he was literally talking about powerful people inside EA/LW communities all lacking trust in each other. Definitely atleast some of this has rubbed off on me, via a number of interactions I have had 1 to 1. This seems all the more reason why actual high-bandwidth irl connections need to be opened up. Okay so atleast I do have one clear insight out of all of this. If there are some people inside US and some people outside, all going anti-US, and also various people are at various levels of extremist on the spectrum, then there need to necessarily be high bandwidth channels to be opened between them. That is the only way they can coordinate. PaxHeader/X_last_few_months_of_trying_to_process_my_emotions_Y_everything_I_pay_attention_to_seem000644 000765 000024 00000000260 15243727742 042705 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main146 path=text_english/personal/main/X_last_few_months_of_trying_to_process_my_emotions_Y_everything_I_pay_attention_to_seems_to_loop_on_itself.md 30 mtime=1787801570.083397285 X_last_few_months_of_trying_to_process_my_emotions_Y_everything_I_pay_attention_to_seems_to_loop_o000644 000765 000024 00000003704 15243727742 043176 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-08-27 # X: Last few months of trying to process my emotions. Y: Everything I pay attention to seems to loop on itself Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - See also: [Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself and bloom - Henrik Karlsson](https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/attention) - Examples - If I focus on the fact that I feel unsafe, I begin to feel more unsafe. - If I focus on my resentment and anger of people, I begin to resent them even more. - If I focus on my insecurity over not having a partner, I begin to feel even more insecure. - On one hand, I think giving these things sustained attention is the only way I am able to reach a level of **acceptance** about these things. But until then, focussing on them can make them even worse. - I think the right move is like, give it enough attention, accept it, such that it eventually recedes from your attention on its own. - Example - For instance I noticed I don't feel that unsafe nowadays. I used to some months back. Partly I have a better model of the actual risks to me. (Most people in Bangalore genuinely don't care much either way about my plans, they are somewhat useless but also somewhat harmless as a result.) Partly though I have just accepted that ya you are not safe and this is fine, and I now don't seem to think about it as much. - It is a bit funny lol, I now look at some of my notes from few months back and I feel a level of detachment to them I did not feel back then. - Otherwise maybe you can just deliberately fill your working memory with happy stuff? - Example - While working I try to deliberately fill the phrase "curiosity about EVM" in my working memory. - Thinking about specific people I have met while travelling makes me happy. - Other things that helped include exercise and meeting people (esp. women, but anyone helps, even friends help, kids help, people with novel experiences help). text_english/personal/main/useless_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000022200 15177753505 022337 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-08 ## Update > Because my bar is not particularly high (for people to have sex with, or people to consume substances with), I don't seem to see any reason to pick one person over another. At the same time, I think long-term relationships are worth it. - Wanted to point out a minor issue I seem to have with the wording. Regarding long-term relationships, I said that my bar for women is not particular high. This might not be true in my specific case. - What I actually meant was, I don't really believe in having a long list of criteria for who to date. It is better for your list to be short instead, for most people. A lot of potential sources of friction in a marriage can actually be worked over with enough effort, if you do love each other and are willing to commit to stick long-term with each other. - Every additional criteria you add is making your love for them more conditional. - It is yet another restriction you're placing on their ability to grow and change with time. Suppose your partner matched your criteria on day one, but they evolved over time to not match it anymore. They will probably suffer during that whole time period. You might eventually realise your criteria are more flexible than you thought. Or you might break up. Or they choose to not change, but suppress their resentment for you instead. - I would be completely unsurprised if having close to zero or literal zero items on the list, is what turns out to be what makes most people the happiest. I don't mean arranged marriage with a stranger picked by your family. I mean meet a stranger (by any method), and spend some short time period like a few months to figure out if you a) find each other attractive, a) "vibe" together, and c) have good conflict resolution skills. If you do, then commit to marrying them. - I don't actually have the data though, so I am speculating here. - Following this probably does make your bar low. As in, there's probably many people you could have married instead of this person, and also been similarly happy with instead. - I'm not actually willing to keep my bar this low. For example, I want to find someone who is polyamorous, which narrows my search space by a lot. - See also: [I dislike dating as status game](./I_dislike_dating_as_status_game.md) - There's a bunch of incentives to deliberately keep your bar high, and to pretend to keep it high. - Society seems to me to be deeply confused on whether there are any traits that make for a good match, that are universal across most people. I even mean this for the most basic criteria like whether they have money to self-sustain themselves, or whether they are physically fit, or whether they have good hygiene. For instance, I think the number of people who can successfully marry someone with average/below-average hygiene is surprisingly high, and is way higher than the number of people will end up marrying then. - And if this is how I feel about basic criteria, you can imagine how I feel about trying to marry someone who is a millionaire or is a supermodel or whatever. Like, how do you actually know this increases probability of happy marriage? - See also: [Being ignored doesn't mean being disliked](./being_ignored_doesnt_mean_being_disliked.md) - I am making yet another accusation of people based on status/groupthink, so I again want to be especially careful about it. --- 2025-12-31 # Useless people Disclaimer - **Quick Note** I have clearly been struggling with the question of "who should I spend time with?" for multiple years now. One conclusion I am increasingly realising as of today (2025-12-32) is that most people are of no use to me. Here's some quick notes on this. Not specifying the full context here. I still consider all these questions unsolved. Useless people - Professional life - 99.99% of people are basically useless to me for my professional life, i.e., trying to fix AI risk. - Since most people are trying to solve different problems than I am, they aren't that good at providing advice or at making me feel seen. - Full explanation for why these people are trying to solve different problems than me, is out of scope for this post. - Maybe there is some minor value they can still provide to me, if I was skilled at extracting it from them. I am not that skilled at this, and learning this skill is not my priority. - A handful of people are useful. - Mainly this is a few people working on plans to fix AI risk that are explicitly adversarial to AI companies, and also are generally power-seeking and not naive about how power works. - I will meet some of them in-person next year. - I expect some of our interactions to be transactional at first (which deteriorates any happiness you can get out of the relationship), but if I work long-term with someone, possibly as a cofounder, I have some hope this can change. - Personal life - Atleast 90% of people are basically useless for me for my personal life. - The primary people I find slightly useful are people I can have sex with, and people I can consume substances with. - I definitely care about having sex less than I did as a teenager, possibly as a result of having more sex and maybe also hormonal changes. I still care about it a fair amount. - I think sex with a longterm partner is better than sex with a shortterm partner who still actually cares about you, which is in turn way better than a shortterm partner who doesn't care. Full explanation of all this is out of scope for this post. - I don't really enjoy most hobbies a lot for very long. - I don't think this is for lack of trying out new hobbies. - Full list of which hobbies I enjoy how much is out of scope of this post. The short version is that if I look at all the hobbies I've tried over last few years, then consuming substances seems like the primary hobby I enjoy that is also social. - I don't enjoy most intellectual conversation anymore. - I consume a lot of content online (long-form, non-fiction), but this is a more of a solo activity and I don't enjoy discussing it with others as much. - Some intellectual people in my circles only care about acquiring knowledge as some sort of intellectual game completely detached from our real world actions. I used to be a bit like this, but am not anymore. I've shifted from MtG Blue Red towards more MtG Blue Black. - Both sets of people I actually like, seem highly expendable to me. - Because my bar is not particularly high (for people to have sex with, or people to consume substances with), I don't seem to see any reason to pick one person over another. At the same time, I think long-term relationships are worth it. - Maybe the conclusion of this is to just use a greedy approach - pick the first people you meet in life who can satisfy these, and then commit to them long-term. I am not sure about this conclusion and need more time to figure it out (via thinking, more experiences, etc). - See also: The Little Prince - I prefer hanging out with happy people. - Empirically, people who accept reality as it is (MtG Green) seem happier on average to me than people who value don't accept reality and want to change it (MtG Black). I am non-accepting and unhappy, and I think many people around me are also non-accepting and unhappy. This makes me sometimes not want to hang out with such people. - I prefer hanging out with people whose life plan makes sense (even if their plan has nothing to do with my plan). - I am atleast mildly judgmental of most people of my upper-middle socioeconomic class (net worth above 10 lakh INR) because I think they have a responsibility to improve the world, but they choose not to. The few people who do try to improve the world often work on plans that make no sense to me. In particular, I think many plans people make are not power-seeking enough, or naive about how power works. This judgment I make deteriorates the quality of our relationship atleast a little. - My expectations of people have gone down now but they are not zero. I think this expectation hurts me, but I can't not have this expectation because it seems grounded in real data, in my head. I might need to write more about why I am judgmental, and if I should be. - I seem more accepting of people with lesser money just pursuing a normal career. - Other people prefer hanging out with happy me. - Lots of other people also prefer hanging out with happy people, and the fact that I am not actually that happy has made multiple people not want to hang out with me. It is possible some of these people are making the right decision. - I would ideally want long-term relationships where both of us are better off together than apart over the long run. I think parasiting off of someone's energy can be okay in short-term but bad in the long-term. - Maybe no one on Earth seems extremely useful to me. - In my entire life, I don't think I have met a single person I would like to hang out everyday with as of today. I have tried to hang out with people everyday (for example in college, or in previous relationship), but I don't think I want to go back to hanging out everyday with any of them. text_english/personal/main/reasons_I_dont_have_a_girlfriend.md000644 000765 000024 00000002121 15177753505 025766 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-30 # Reasons I don't have a girlfriend Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Seeing other people with their partners reminded me that I want a partner too. Reasons I don't have a girlfriend: 1. More probably than not, I don't like myself much as a person - Most Important 2. I am not Actually Trying - There are levels of Trying far beyond my current level. - I clearly don't want an average woman like some of the people I know. I don't want to "adjust" or blunt the edges of my personality in order to be with someone. Apart from finding people sexually attractive, I clearly don't like the average woman, like, at all. I can only form superficial connections with most people, and I obviously don't want to date someone who I can only have that with. I will get bored of such a person eventually, even if I enjoy it at first. - If I want extraordinary outcomes, I should put in extraordinary effort. But I am clearly not prioritising putting that much effort. Example of extraordinary effort - host more meetups in Bangalore on some topic that is not directly my interest but proxies for it. personal/main/many_of_the_experiences_I_like_seem_to_involve_intense_physical_sensation.md000644 000765 000024 00000004012 15253037025 036334 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-09-18 # Many of the experiences I like seem to involve intense physical sensation Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Lightbulb moment lmao - Examples of such experiences: - Swimming. Sometimes cold water swim / plunge - Sauna - Very spicy food (to the point where I tear up) - Massage - Sex - Stores with very bright lighting. (I used to enjoy this, now bored of it.) - Loud music? (Does loud music count? Like, not to the point where it is painful for the eardrums, but loud enough that you can't run a parallel thought stream so easily. And I prefer listening at home, not in a concert because I dislike crowds and sweat and expensive tickets.) - Day-long hikes maybe - Sleep deprivation. (Sometimes) - Having my train be derailed lmfao - (I will skip some substance-related stuff since I don't want to remind myself of that, and I wanna stay sober. But technically that also counts here, yes.) - For all of these, if I overdo them I get bored of them. Need a sufficiently large reset period before the experience can be pleasurable again. - Counterexamples (experiences I don't enjoy, despite intense physical sensation): - Rollercoasters - Driving (bike, car, etc) - Strong smells of any kind (pleasant or unpleasant) - Pain. Like, actually being injured - Very hot or very cold weather. (I actually don't mind visiting a place with large temperature difference for a day or two. I just don't want to live there.) - Most sports - Possible explanation (not tested) - By default, my senses are switched off and I am not processing any of that information. However if the experience is sufficiently intense then I can no longer ignore it. - Implications if true - I should maybe try more such experiences? For example, I could try a martial art and get punched in the face lol. - Is there a way to electric shock yourself within a safe level? I could check - **TO DO** - read about skin nerve endings and what types of information they can process text_english/personal/main/mainstream_society_is_traumatising.md000644 000765 000024 00000006246 15246374206 026477 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-04 # Mainstream society is traumatising Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Rant post. - Yes, I am going to use the T word. - It is 4 am now so my sleep schedule is also officially off. This could be another factor for why I am in a generally miserable mood. - Living among people who are not making 50 year long plans is very painful. - Like, I am unable to find people either for work or for dating or for friendships, everything is because nobody here is actually making 50 year long plans. Unproven hypothesis. - Work is obvious. Nobody gives a shit that the world is ending. Even if you could by some miracle brainwash people into believing ASI risk is real, even then they will do nothing about it. They are that herd-like and that trapped and that lacking in imagination. It boggles my mind honestly. - Dating wise also ... I do have some private information I can't reveal. But to share the part that is relevant publicly. I think I want to be poly because I am really thinking about the long term. And some other poly people in Bangalore are that way only to have more sex. I don't care about more sex, I care about 50 year long marriages. Do I want to be in a 50 year long marriage, yes. Do I want to only have sex with one person for 50 years, no. Hence I am poly. This is not the reasoning process that other poly people seem to use. They are just like, more sex, okay good. Like, my problem isn't even with hedonism I think. My problem is you are only hedonist and you have nothing else in life and you are making no longterm plans whatsoever. - I am in the wrong city lol. **I am fully brainwashed by SF ideologies and now I am only capable of living in SF apparently.** - I would quite literally sacrifice a finger or a toe (not an arm, sorry) to live in a community full of thousands of peoplg making actual 50 year long plans like me, who also believed in technological progress like me, who also valued Knowledge/Science and Power/Ruthlessness over Order/Community, Harmony/Acceptance or Freedom/Passion. Main 2 - I currently like myself less as a person a little bit, as a result of having practised drums instead of working the last couple of days. These people aren't worth it lol. You will respect yourself less as a person if you try to impress them so hard. This was the original trigger for the rant. - **I categorically refuse to join a hobby only because it has a good gender ratio.** This cannot be your only motivator. Go pick the hobby you actually want to learn, and if it has good ratio then good, if not then also chalega. These people are not worth it. - Find someone who is attracted to you being you, not you trying to be someone you are not. - Like, the key thing is integrity. This is also why I refuse to delete the poly thing from my hinge profile. Obviously I will get more matches if I delete it. But I am like, no, this is important to me. And people can tell lol. People are not that stupid. If you want X but you pretend to want Y, people can tell. I will go after what I actually want and I will not settle for anything less. Main 3 - I miss work. I want to get back to work. I will work tomorrow. Floating point errors let's go. text_english/personal/main/solve_100_lion_100_zebra_problem.md000644 000765 000024 00000004475 15205116005 025316 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-25 # Solve 100 lion 100 zebra problem Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Maybe go solve [100 lion 100 zebra problem](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/9155/variant-of-lion-and-100-zebras) - Don't use this to procrastinate on actual work - But also, maybe if you get some free time, go solve this - Partial results - (old result) N lions can always move radially outwards and ensure 100-N zebras are inside their convex hull or circle - if N lions try to trap 1 zebra, then zebra obviously wins for N=2,3,4. not yet sure what happens for N=6 or above (N=5 is annoying to analyse) - assume a double-zebra is a zebra that moves at half speed (imagine it is two zebras stuck to each other). a lion can always catch a double-zebra. (zebras only have an advantage because the zebras can always separate from each other) - assume a double-lion is a lion that moves at half speed (imagine it is two lions stuck to each other). a zebra encircled by N double-lions at some large radius D, can always escape the double-lions. (for lions to encircle a zebra and trap it successfully, it is necessary (but not sufficient) for the lions to be willing to separate from each other.) if D is small I'm unsure what happens - Holy fuck, wait did I solve it? - Assume an origin, split the plane into 100 pie slices centred at origin, all with equal angle. Assume one zebra in each pie slice at a large distance D from origin. - lemma 1 - it is not possible for 100 lions in a pie slice to drive the zebra of that slice towards the centre repeatedly - lemma 2 - it is not possible for 100 lions in a pie slice to drive the zebra of that slice towards the edge of the pie slice - if I can prove 1 and 2, I can prove zebras win - I don't know, 1 and 2 both just feel intuitively true to me, but I don't have proof. If you send one lion to chase the zebra, you'll basically end up in a stalemate situation. If you send two lions to chase the zebra, the midpoint of the lions will move at half speed compared to the zebra. If a point is chasing the zebra at half its speed, not only can the zebra outrun it, but also it can complete an entire circle around this point if it wanted to without being caught, it is just a question of how large a circle it needs and whether this fits inside the pie slice. text_english/personal/main/sleep_with_your_clothes_on.md000644 000765 000024 00000001070 15215166172 024737 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-19 # Sleep with your clothes on Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Sleeping without clothes makes you happy. But you predictably end up waking up late and hence being less productive. Consider not sleeping without clothes. - Also my current exercise schedule ends up causing this - after taking bath at night I seem to prefer to just laze around naked. Right now not trying to change this aspect, just make sure you wear clothes before sleeping. - You can laze around on your off day (currently sundays) if you feel like. text_english/personal/main/why_do_I_even_want_a_relationship_besides_having_sex.md000644 000765 000024 00000046522 15205517612 032113 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-23 # Why do I even want a relationship, besides having sex? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - The more I think about it, the more I feel like all my answers for this are fake, and having sex is the only real reason I want a relationship. You consistently have sex with someone, you end up developing a deep sense of caring about them, and that's it? [1] - Like, I don't want to hang out with male friends very often, why would it be any different for women, if I removed the sex from the picture? This is an empirical fact not theoretical, that I don't want to hang out with most male friends very often, even people I care about. - I can speculate all sorts of theoretical reasons as to why this is happening, but I have to trust the empirical fact more. - I have a theoretical reason for hanging out with women which is that female-pattern psychology is different from male-pattern psychology, and hence a woman might be able to give feedback to fix blockers to effective action, that are more emotional in nature. And having someone who can repeatedly do this is great. But, I don't actually have empirical evidence here, this is just theory. - There is this thing called Understanding All the Way Down or Karnofsky's Minimal Trust Investigations or similar that I find relevant. Don't just say "inputs from female-pattern psychology will help you solve problems in life better", but ask specifics. **What specific property of female-pattern psychology will help you solve what specific problem?** - Conclusion - I need to understand female-pattern psychology better? But I don't know, I do feel like I understand some things about it at a more theoretical high level. I just don't understand the details, and the details matter? - Random empirical fact - a lot of women on dating apps do seem to implicitly prioritise someone who is peaceful or has resolved all their internal conflicts, or has "emotionally intelligent" ways of resolving their internal conflicts, whatever that means. Many don't say it aloud but some do. - I am quite suspicious of this term called "emotional intelligence." - Like, on one hand, I am convinced it is pointing at a real thing that has tremendous value. - On the other hand, it feels like a lot of what people are pointing at when they use the phrase "emotional intelligence" is a bunch of cached heuristics to lobotomise any part of you that wants to deviate from the social order. - For instance, the social order in many places is basically liberalism ultra pro max, which means everyone is entitled to their opinion, everyone is free to pick whatever goals, don't judge anyone blah blah. If you instead say that everyone else has shit opinions based on shit data and picks shit goals based on shit understanding of themselves, I'm sure there's atleast one woman out there who considers this take "emotionally unintelligent." But why? Apart from the obvious fact that saying this aloud in itself threatens the social order, what other reason is there for this to be unintelligent? Oh, important question, is it believing this statement that is unintelligent or saying it aloud so bluntly that is unintelligent? - Yeah, I think I need to rephrase this question. **What properties of female-pattern psychology are valuable to me, besides higher ability to track and resolve bullshit interpersonal drama?** - I have no interest in resolving most interpersonal drama, or even in learning the skill of resolving interpersonal drama, I can just distance from said person and get on my way. Women on the other hand want to play some 4D chess to maintain a complex web of relationships, if they ideally could. Not that they always succeed at it, many of them fail ofcourse. - Maybe this is a worthwhile survey question? Like, just go ask some people, imagine you couldn't have sex with your partner anymore (imagine you both have a disease or something), then what will you do together? I'm sure people will give the obvious boring reasons like hobbies and household chores and travel and whatever. Okay, no, I should specifically ask, what conversations will you have? - Lol, looking at myself through the mind sims of some of my friends, it is true that I really am going in a more ascetic direction. - I increasingly don't seem to want anything from anyone. - Not in the "oh I want to be hyperindividualist, because dependence makes you vulnerable" sense. (That is also somewhat true, but not the primary driver here.) - But in the more fundamental "I actually don't need much in life right now, that I can get from anyone else. And the few things I do need, most people are clearly unable to offer them to me." - [Deleted one section of this post, because privacy of other people] - I want to cry. pause - Okay I took a pause and I'm back. - Maybe this is actually a good thing? Maybe it is good to not need a lot of things? But then, if I don't need anything, why am I unhappy? I'm not unhappy literally right now, but I have often been unhappy. - [Ugh sorry, having to delete more stuff, it is all connected with privacy of other people] - Why is there so much chaos in the world? ugh. so much chaos in people's minds. It's like, I open my door and walk outside, and the chaos of the world threatens to eat me alive. - "What do you want that you don't already have?", I want to say to people. - I know it is lowkey privileged of me to say that with > 5 years runway in the bank, but still. more pause - The only two years of my life I have actually been happy where when a) had close friends who made me feel seen and heard for first time ever b) was not sober for most of the time. - **How incredibly fucking painful was Reality itself, that the only years I was truly happy in life was when I was drowning myself with substances? Holy Fucking Shit.** death - I don't know, I visualise some of these Disney movies, like maybe the villain in doctor strange, or the dragon hordes in how to train your dragon, or the god-like figure in one of those Miyazaki films. Just, imagine a being with a gravitational vortex at the edge of spacetime, a being you cannot pass because it lies at the very edge of the universe, pulling everything in its path. The God of Death, so to speak. (Goddess of Death sounds cooler in terms of pronounciation, but I am definitely imagining a male figure here) - WHAT WAS IT FOR? (the voice thunders) - What was all of this for? - Part of me wants to just pack up my things and go meditate in a forest about the fact that I might soon die. - I obviously can't do that, I have stay here and fight. But it is fun to imagine. - I'm sure even if I did try this experiment I will get bored in a few days. [1] I know having kids is another (obvious) reason to have a relationship. But I don't plan to have kids anytime soon anyway, so not talking about it here. --- Whispering Death - haha I remember the dragon's name - and also the wind sounds I used in the youtube clip I made - "Smite Them with the Fury of a Thousand Suns" - This is what I want to say to those building ASI. - I was just reading George Hotz' blog recently. I don't actually understand why people underestimate intelligence this much. I want shake people awake and say, if your clone ran 100x faster than you, you would worship him as you would a God. If even 10 years spent on the same goal is enough to shape human history, what would you do with 100 years? What about a 1000 years? You would obviously transcend the powers that all mythologies written so far have historically ascribed to various gods. Your creations will be more complicated and more surprising than those described in any scriptures. - I don't know, I wish I had more free time to read really old books. Like, it is funny how big a revelation probability and statistics was considered back then and how dead obvious it is now. Or newton spending so much time writing about christianity. The old political books are actually the less surprising books. Some things never change. - I bring up historical books because they allow you to see why culture in different times was different in many ways, yet artificial fucking superintelligence could shatter everything. Imagine taking a shovel and digging Newton out of his grave and performing an exhorcism to wake him up then scream in his ear. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE - Dumb fuck species, man. I start reading history hoping to find that people were different or maybe even more wise in some narrow ways as compared to today. But in truth, they were the same blundering idiots that we are now. The same blundering idiots. Should I make art? - **I don't actually have to talk to people to make art.** Important point. - I gave up on all the political stuff because I realised I hate talking to people. But that doesn't mean I can't make art. - I wish artists had more political power. But audience is stupid and just wants more hedonism. More sex and more drugs, and more art referring to said sex and drugs. I'm sure there are niche audiences that are better than this, maybe I should search for them more actively. But in any case, such artists will remain niche and will likely never get to rule the world. - lol note to self - cold email nolan and ask him to make an ASI takeover movie that is more realistic than all the other takeover movies. update - tried searching, but this is too much work ugh - Forget about artificial intelligence, these fuckers underestimate human intelligence. - Also lol lmao even this writeup eventually ended up on the topic of ASI - Actually I wonder if even I am underestimating myself honestly. Fuck Bernie Sanders, fuck all these lame ass politicians with their lame ass agendas, even thinking of these people makes me feel degraded. Why am I playing into such a lame ass game? - If I want to influence politics, I should become the inspiring person myself. But holy fuck, the people are retarded. I just want to take a blackboard and write "The People are Retarded" over and over for days together. If I ever made art, this is the type of art I would make lol. - I think I will be on the safe side and not pass any public comments about Osho's video. But that is obviously what to came to mind. --- 2026-05-23 - I searched reddit anecdotes and in my head, it basically says I am right? - Some additional points from reddit search - Women carry different energy, you usually end up "softer" with them. - My guess is this translates to "you are more unwilling to say things that hurt their feelings, and they are unwilling to say things that hurt yours." This matches my personal experience honestly, men I know default to more of advice, and women I know default to more of making someone feel seen/heard/understood/accepted/etc. Many reddit comments also mention men on average are okay with darker humour and insults (as humour) than women, which yes, also matches my experience. - Physical intimacy besides sex. Duh - Men automatically become more protective of women, and women also reciprocally appreciate this. - I agree with this too, and this also matches personal experience. - Women gossip more and tell more lies on average, as per one redditor. - This also matches my experience. Women are more interested in interpersonal drama, and lying is part of many strategies to keeping around people that you aren't actually close with. - Women have different information in their heads. - Women understand the experiences (both positive and negative) of other women way better than men, so if you are in platonic or romantic relationship with a woman you might get access to this information. Fair enough. - Okay so if I fit this back into my earlier ontology - "What specific properties of female-pattern psychology will help me solve what specific problems?" - The properties are "better emotional listening skills" and "willingness to receive your protectiveness of them." There might be more but these are the top ones I am noticing so far. - Okay but what does any of this have to do with value differences? My earlier notes on this topic are all about how value differences tend to break apart marriages. - Yeah I think it is as simple as "emotional listening is harder to do across a large value difference." Women may be better at it than men, doesn't mean it is not hard. - Holy shit - **"How to do emotional listening across large value differences"** is a skill I may want to invest in. I can't see any fundamental reason a man can't get good at this skill, I just never chose to do this. - I am fucking excited lol, all the gears clicked into place. It's like, you build one cluster of world models here and a different cluster of world models there, and then you're like, holy shit, this is how both clusters connect. - Okay so fitting this back into my earlier ontology - **"which value transitions are likely to break a marriage apart?" should correlate with "which value transitions make it harder to make the other person feel emotionally seen/heard/understood?"** - Okay so now back to some more theoretical rambling on this - One obvious set of things that makes listening harder is when both your priorities are directly competing for some shared resource. For instance if you want to put money in cryonics and your wife wants to put money on her parents' healthcare, you can just split the money 50-50 or something, and say "you do you, I'll do me." But if there is some shared resource involved, let's say whether you live in the same city or not, you want to stay in another city but your partner wants you stay back in the same city, then these two priorities conflict. - Basically, Place, large amounts of Attention (aka time) and large amounts of Capital - these are the three scarce resources, invoking another world model of mine. If either partner makes large demands of the other, based on conflicting priorities, then this makes it harder to make the other person feel seen/heard/understood. - Apart from this, there is some stuff around "ideals"? Like, human beings are by default groupthinking idiots, but once you have crossed those maslow's hierarchy thresholds, and you are doing things for reasons besides "need minimum capital to not starve to death" and "need minimum attention from others to not starve to death mentally", then basically get to pick your own ideals. Some ideals are more in tension with each other than others. - In an earlier note I took this to an extreme and said, what ideals are you willing to die for and what people are you willing to die for. But even milder versions of differing ideals could make it harder to make the other person feel seen/heard/understood. - Note to self - **Make a map of all the ideals people assign here, and then pairwise analyse which ideals make it harder or easier to make the other person feel seen/heard/understood.** - Why am I doing this so theoretically? Why can't I collect more real world data here? I need to meet more people who aren't just doing "corporate slavery" plus "half-assed hobbies" plus "half-assed or full-assed attempt at obtaining more sex." - I don't know, I seem stuck in some bad bubble where most people just want sex lol. - Ugh. Won't rant, don't wanna ruin my mood here. - One of my ideals is clearly Power, as in bend reality to your will, how Yudkowsky defines it. - The typical ways of acquiring Power are to acquire a huge excess of Capital or Attention. The typical way to acquire a huge excess of Capital or Attention is to become among the best in the world at some niche skill, or niche pair of skills. - But there are lots of different skills that get you there, and which skill you choose to get good at, transforms how your mind works. Okay so these are also different ideals? - Two people who both want Power above all else, might still on a day-to-day basis be doing very different things and hence have very different ideals (sort of?) and life experience. Making both these people feel seen/heard/understood would lead to two very different experiences. Like, imagine the difference between being Patrick Collison's wife versus James Donaldson's wife. I'm sure there are similarities but also big differences, because Collison and Donaldson look at the world differently, pay attention to different parts of it, obsess over different parts of it. --- note to self - go read a couple of academic textbooks on female psychology. Not evo psych, and definitely not dating advice. hmm - ok if I summarise my current view of dating in very surface level terms - to attract women - status (have some niche group of other men or women respect you), looks (includes the appearance of physical strength, fashion etc), humour (proxies for traits like having resolved internal conflict) - or ofcourse use dumb hacks like lovebombing people lol - to keep women - resolving internal conflict, ability to make someone feel seen/heard/etc across value differences, protectiveness - this sounds about right, seems lame but true --- 2026-05-26 - **Am I insane or does literally everything on this list correspond with your values?** - Status - It is very easy for me to claim high status by hanging out with people who are dumber than me or less wealthy than me or less accomplished than me in some hobby or similar. The problem is I don't want to hang out in any of those groups or claim status in any of those ways. I want to earn people's respect for things I consider valuable, not things **they** consider valuable. And if that can't happen, then I don't respect them or want their respect either. I would rather play the long game and have society respect me 10 years later, even if they don't respect me now. - Looks - Maintaining a habit of going to gym or similar requires some discipline, which is fine, I can do this. I will experiment with this next few months. Fashion I am bottlenecked on actually, I figured out one trick here which is pay someone else to buy me clothes, the problem is this then matches their fashion sense and not mine. I don't yet know what art I really want to signal, as a result of my ASI risk beliefs. This is not on my priority list at the moment, but might be in the future. I don't know lol, I like being able to just purchase a tshirt of blinkit and go wear it. I am genuinely extremely minimalist, I like that my attention is pulled in less directions, and I can have purity of vision. - Humour - Ability to laugh at things correlates atleast weakly with having resolved your internal conflicts and having more stable values. This is a way of doing humour from a position of strength. There is also another way of doing humour from a neediness to get others to like you. I am definitely not the latter. - Resolving internal conflict, having high self-esteem - literally values - Ability to make someone feel/seen/heard/etc across value differences - depends on values - Protectiveness - I think I can be highly protective of someone with very different values from me, I have empirical data here. But also, having shared values doesn't hurt. - Okay so what are next steps for me - **priorities - build muscle (experiment and see for few months, can't hurt), do the marriage value transition surveys, figure out internal conflicts I have in values more (more specifically - why do I hate the world so much and can I do less of this? how do I forgive people for abandoning me and abandoning themselves, when the stakes are this unimaginably high?), meet more mission-focussed people** - **not priorities** - figure out my taste in fashion, try to become high status anywhere or join any group, try to be funny personal/main/if_you_want_to_keep_your_bear_soft_toy_become_permanent_global_dictator.md000644 000765 000024 00000006005 15235064653 036052 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-08-05 minor edit 2026-06-06 # If you want to keep your bear soft toy, become permanent global dictator Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - This is a continuation of a previous note: [Everything you care about can be taken away from you. In the end, there is only Power](./everything_you_care_about_can_be_taken_away_from_you_in_the_end_there_is_only_power.md) - At the end of writing that note, I ended up purchasing a brown bear soft toy. I think that was a good purchase and I now often sleep with the bear. - I don't know, just looking at the bear just now, and realising yet again - if I want to ensure with certainty that this toy won't be taken away from me, the way to maximise probability of that outcome is for me personally to become permanent global dictator (for instance by building an ASI under my control). And even then this probability is quite far from 100%. Which is completely insane but also completely true. - I remember the scene from Shawshank redemption where the prison warden deliberately destroys the library he had previously given to the protagonist, and then puts the protagonist in a dark room with solitary confinement for a month. - Reality works exactly the same way. If there is anything at all in this world that you hold dear to you, that is exactly the thing that people with power will choose to come after if they want to control you. And that is exactly why you need power yourself. - I used to think not caring about things was a defence. Have less people you care about. Have less things you care about. I think this has been ingrained in me since teenage itself. And like, I still do agree, it is infact a defence. If you have less wants and needs, it is harder for someone to hurt you by taking them away. - But I increasingly feel like I don't have an option in the matter. There are things in this world that I do care about, whether I like it or not. These things can be taken away from me, whether I like it or not. Fighting like hell to keep these things is the only move I got. ("Things" also refers to people, processes, etc not just material stuff.) - Oh this also reminds me of that scene from that Nicholas Cage movie, Con Air, where the hero ends up gifting this pink soft toy to his daughter at the end. Main 2 - Sometimes offence is the best defence. Your desire for control over reality is unbounded, the probability of you controlling the outcome keeps going up the more actual power in the world you have, there is no special point at which this stops. (For instance, some people believe that defence is morally okay but offence is morally bad. This is for them.) - Instrumental convergence motherfuckers - Some people believe hiding in complete privacy is a defence. Some people believe becoming harmless and not politicaly involved is a defence. Guess what, you may not be interested in the eye of sauron but the eye of sauron is interested in you. These are only partial defences. The strongest defence is still a good offence, i.e., become powerful yourself. text_english/personal/main/dance_class_how_to_sync_private_and_public_notes.md000644 000765 000024 00000001460 15202346740 031275 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-17 # Dance class, how to sync private and public notes Disclaimer - Personal, target audience - strictly myself Main - Attended a dance class today - I will err on the side of keeping my notes private for now, for the usual reason, other people were also there and wanna respect their privacy, blah blah blah. Might share more public notes after some weeks - As a meta note though, I need a way to ensure my private and public notes stay in sync. - My experiment in writing public notes is actually fairly successful. But now the problem is I often don't actually go read my private notes. And this is especially a problem because the private notes are usually the more important ones, because they involve interactions with others, and those are one of the more important parts of human experience. text_english/personal/main/should_I_type_cold_messages_slowly.md000644 000765 000024 00000003740 15177753505 026430 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-16 # Should I type cold messages slowly? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I have been recently humbled by the difficulty of writing good cold messages for the type of radical work I want to do. - Most of my cold messages get ignored, and it's hard to diagnose why, and I have multiple times gotten proof that the actual reason I diagnosed was wrong. - Incomplete list of reasons the message might be ignored: - The person literally does not check that inbox often, they're busy with other things. - They skimmed it but it didn't match their immediate priorities. They could have work or non-work priorities. Example of non-work priority - being sick or depressed, having to meet family, etc. - They misunderstood your message because of insufficient context. Or they misunderstood your message because their own worldview is different, for instance due to very different life circumstances. - They disagree with something in your message. - There might be incentives that prevent them from being in a position to engage with your message, even if they otherwise want to. - In my specific case, obvious political risks are a reason why strangers will be less likely to respond to me. - They genuinely dislike your beliefs or values, or maybe even dislike you as a person. - How to deal with this: - One perspective is just the SV perspective, most mistakes can be corrected if you move fast. Write hundreds of messages and be prepared to have most rejected. - Another perspective is more a politician-like perspective, really put effort to try and figure out their circumstances and personality type and whatnot, and then craft good cold messages. For instance you could meet people of their reference class in-person and get feedback, or read the same blogs they do, or whatever. - Send video cold DMs instead of text cold DMs. People trust video more, for whatever reason (not speculating reasons now) - Conclusion - Maybe I will experiment more with video DMs PaxHeader/ruthlessly_deprioritise_but_never_surrender_and_never_lie_to_yourself_that_surrender_is000644 000765 000024 00000000252 15250712742 043046 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main140 path=text_english/personal/main/ruthlessly_deprioritise_but_never_surrender_and_never_lie_to_yourself_that_surrender_is_a_good_thing.md 30 mtime=1789105634.552008207 ruthlessly_deprioritise_but_never_surrender_and_never_lie_to_yourself_that_surrender_is_a_good_thi000644 000765 000024 00000003176 15250712742 043261 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-11 # Ruthlessly deprioritise but never surrender, and never lie to yourself that surrender is a good thing Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - This is a point I have made to myself before too, but repeating it so it sticks - Actually not in a mood to sit and type the whole thing - I know what this post means - "Getting good will take a lot of time hence I deprioritise this for now, in favour of something else" is fine. "I am not capable of getting good at this (ever, in life) so I will just rely on plans that don't rely on this" is not fine. - Most importantly, do not do the psychologically bullshit where you tell yourself that surrender is a good thing actually. - Like, you could say: "Okay I feel unsafe and powerless, maybe let me accept the fact that I am powerless and move on. Maybe I'll get good at something else and feel good about that." Like, sure, some acceptance of curent situation is okay I guess. But you know what gives people feelings of power? Actual power. You know what gives people feelings of safety? Actual safety. - Or you could say, "I don't like the way I look that much and hence I will find it harder to find a partner. Maybe I should just accept this is me being more authentic or whatever." Lol lmao. Actually improving physical strength and fashion sense and so on will probably do way more for your sense of self-worth than any amount of psychological "this is fine actually" talk. - MtG Greens can go fuck themselves. (Well, if I met an MtG Green in person I'd probably steelman their case harder. This note is written 75% to me and only 25% to actual MtG Greens.) text_english/personal/main/I_like_jacob_falcovichs_blog_on_dating.md000644 000765 000024 00000003501 15177753505 027073 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-08 # I like Jacob Falcovich's blog on dating Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I think I noticed enough things about it that match my experiences irl, that I'm inclined to upweight a lot of the advice it gives. Will look at it more seriously one of these days. Update - Was watching his podcasts more, and like, I'm just sad. Okay, the both of them too are going to be murdered by ASI too, unless I do something about ASI risk. - He puts a bunch of it in a very dating context, but I think some of this can be generalised to other contexts (like yes, creating anti-ASI political propaganda). - Although, in the anti-ASI propaganda though, I do still feel like you need a lot more violent moves. You need to complete break people's brains a lot more, and make them confront their own mortality (even though they desperately don't want to do that). The moves Jacob is endorsing feel too subtle for the type of thing I want to do. - Ugh I am again procrastinating on the other work because of the stuff around morality. - I don't know, I think explicitly saying you want someone with low grade of psychopathy might actually select for someone who is a much higher grade than you want. It's definitely going to trigger a bunch of non-violent people, that I can live with. I'm more concerned about who it'll attract. Update > When I see a group start succeeding by actually dissolving the individual egos of its members, whether it’s through sheer force of ideology or with the aid of drugs and rituals, that one will have the power to take over the world. I know you’re not looking forward to this but I am. - Important - reinforces my claim that it is very important to figure out if I am working on ASI risk to save myself or billions of others https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jekpkQfNGzGnYokfi/fight-the-power importantPaxHeader/maybe_think_more_about_the_truth_and_the_history_books_and_think_less_about_the_deaths_000644 000765 000024 00000000272 15251225711 042614 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main156 path=text_english/personal/main/maybe_think_more_about_the_truth_and_the_history_books_and_think_less_about_the_deaths_of_either_you_or_your_enemies.md 30 mtime=1789209545.905128204 maybe_think_more_about_the_truth_and_the_history_books_and_think_less_about_the_deaths_of_either_y000644 000765 000024 00000005011 15251225711 043054 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-12 # Maybe think more about the Truth and the history books, and think less about the deaths of either you or your enemies Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - In my giant ass manifesto doc "I am looking for cofounder", I basically listed the following types of motivations: - "Kill or be killed" - I want to feast on the blood of my enemies - "Reminding myself of my own death" - I don't want to die. I don't want everyone I meet, everyone I visualise, everyone I see, etc to die - "The Truth will endure" - I believe in the Enlightenment project. I want the truth to endure over the centuries even though The People Are Retarded. - "I want to be in the history books" - I want to matter after I die. I want my work to be remembered. - I think also I claimed that "kill or be killed" might be the strongest motivation out of all of these. - However, attention looped on a core motivation can go either way. Either you can reach a state of acceptance, or you can become **even more** discomforted. - If I loop myself on "kill or be killed", I seem to become even more enraged at my enemies, and even more resentful and enraged at the world for not joining me in this battle against my enemies. - If I loop myself on "reminding myself of my own death", it just tells me everything besides waging war is a waste of time, and I start to emotionally disconnect and disengage from everything and everyone else. - Maybe I should loop myself more on "The Truth will endure." The People Are Retarded ofcourse, but it helps to remember that something will outlast all this. There do in fact exist a few people who don't suck, and they will in fact preserve the truths that are most worth preserving. - Maybe I should loop myself more on "I want to be in the history books." Maybe I should try to inspire myself more with other people who are in the history books. - Examples - Timothy May is in the history books and I will honour him by building on his legacy. Julian Assange is in the history books and I will honour him by building on his legacy. I J Good is in the history books. John von Neumann is in the history books. Heck, even Einstein wrote about human coordination for technologically advanced future and even he is in the history books. Isaac Newton is in the history books. I am still impressed reading the principia lol. - Maybe I should collect more of the writings of these people, and pay more attention to them, and their lives. Maybe focussing on this will make me less resentful? text_english/personal/main/my_blog_from_2018/000755 000765 000024 00000000000 15177753505 022117 5ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 just_help_everyone_you_meet_is_good_networking_advice_but_maybe_bad_civilisation_building_advice.md000644 000765 000024 00000003032 15212001316 043111 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-06-09 # "Just help everyone you meet" is good networking advice, but maybe bad civilisation-building advice Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - It is locally optimal but globally suboptimal - To be clear, I do also more or less follow this advice, but not fully: - With random neutral people, I often have previously have lashed out at them for not working on ASI risk. I am unsure if this is the right behaviour. I will experiment with different behaviours. For instance, I will experiment with maintaining a neutral tone yet uttering the words "your inaction on ASI risk will get me killed." I will also have to eventually become genuinely less angry. This seems important. I am less angry now, but atleast one factor is I genuinely keep some distance from many people. - With anyone close enough to being funded or working for those at AI companies, I have sub-zero interest in helping them. - Most people are open to feedback on tactics not strategy. - What happens when you are helping two different people who are both taking actions that are destructive to each other? Helping pro-ASI people versus helping anti-ASI people. It does not sound very stable to me to try and help both. - **The only way this gets solved long-term, if there is someone who actually gains power and status, while causing suffering to those building ASI. Such as anti-ASI US politicians or anti-ASI US journalists, or leaders (including politicians, billionaires, intelligence, etc) of countries that are anti-US and anti-ASI.** text_english/personal/main/tlp_seems_to_agree_with_some_of_my_framings.md000644 000765 000024 00000006076 15177753505 030322 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 # TLP seems to agree with some of my framings Disclaimer - **Quick Note** [From TLP's post, Don't hate her because she's successful](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/03/dont_hate_her_because_shes_suc.html#comments) > The most important-- her words-- advice Sandberg has to offer women is... to choose your husband carefully. Think about this for a minute. I've fallen in love with some catastrophes in my life, I've drank a lot of rum, and I'm sure a lot of/all people say the same about me, but how on earth could I choose whom I fell in love with? The heart wants what it wants, even when what it wants is on Prozac. How could I select my love based on my career concerns, or is the logic that my soulless zombie skull would love anyone who agreed to do half the chores? The only person who can pull that off is a psychopath, and sure, you may indeed succeed in life, but at what cost? What are you good for? But the Time Magazine force vector doesn't care about your human happiness, it most certainly doesn't care about your caring about your partner's happiness, it cares about your role as producer, and by producer I mean consumer. Eat up, it will have corn in it. - This resonated a lot with me. Literally yesterday I wrote a post on this. - See also: My post on Deliberate status engineering is hard - Much longer back I've also definitely written about conflicts between wanting to seek power and wanting to preserve your relationships. - See also: My post on Why no religion - I actually completely agree with TLP's literal opinion in the post - maybe don't sacrifice your marriage for a General Motors mid level management position. I genuinely have quite poor understanding of what goes on inside a person's mind when they make a decision like this. Are these people getting some actual happiness or value out of it that I (and TLP) are failing to appreciate? - I basically think that if you're ambitious enough to want to attempt being a billionaire or politician, and you think your ethical standards are higher than the people you're trying to replace, or you think there's some specific problem in society you can solve that they're not already solving, there's a decent chance you're literally correct about this, and you should go for it. This is probably going to fuck up your life atleast a little, in a bunch of different ways, including your relationships. But the trade seems worth it to me. - Whereas with a middle management job at General Motors, the main things this added power gets you are a bunch of consumerist goods and experiences which maybe won't make you happy, and some marginal extra ability to protect yourself from people who maybe don't really think about you at all. - I really do want to analyse each of the two judgements I made here, and make sure they're more grounded in reality, rather than just stuff my brain cooked up or projected or simulated or whatever. In general I seem to have a quite poor method of grounding to test psychological hypotheses against. also - There are also a few other paras I resonated with. Will get to it later. text_english/personal/main/learn_to_play_at_level_two.md000644 000765 000024 00000000632 15245100440 024665 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-31 # Learn to play at level two Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Writing random stuff because why not. Minds are weapons. I am bored of reality itself. If I could like anything I could become a ###. Level one to becoming a ### is to figure out what you like. Level two is to reverse engineer your mind such that you can alter what you like. Learn to play at level two. text_english/personal/main/worshipping_a_different_god.md000644 000765 000024 00000004050 15206346732 025034 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-29 # Worshipping a different God Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I am willing to die for my God. - I am willing to kill for my God. - I wish to marry someone who worships the same God as I do. Main 2 - There are small a atheists and capital A Atheists. I am the latter. I worship safe technological progress and am willing to devote my life to it. I don't just find it "cool." - Trying to marry a small a atheist is just as difficult for me as a christian pastor who is a True Believer, trying to marry a more normie christian who just inherited these values but doesn't truly believe. (You can just as easily analogise this to hinduism or islam) - I wish to spend the rest of my days worshipping in the temple of my God. I have no reason to engage in random hobbies and random conversations and what not. Death is coming. The end is near. There is still time for forgiveness. Repent and ye shall be forgiven. Repent not and watch as the gates of Hades descend upon this Earth. Judgment shall be swift but excrutiatingly painful. Main 3 - Holy fuck I can't help but wonder to what extent did Yudkowsky literally model his ideology after the Judaism in which he was raised. - Also relevant to the fact that Yudkowsky has a 100% p(doom) and my p(doom) is noticeably lower. Mine is still pretty high but not as high as his. Main 4 - To be clear, I do still think it is possible for me to marry a small a atheist. This doesn't seem impossible to me, it takes extra work. For that matter I even think it is possible for marry a traditional religious person. Also doesn't seem impossible to me, it takes extra work. - I just have to recognise that making an interfaith marriage like this work, and then also not fighting over which faith to raise your children in, all this is very hard territory. There are people who have succeeded at it in the past, but this is playing life on Hard Mode. Main 5 - lmfao I searched for butlerian jihad and ofcourse [this](https://nitter.net/Pontifex/status/2060322763718725798#m) is what popped upPaxHeader/go_back_to_xy_format_I_just_wish_my_brain_would_stop_spinning_you_dont_have_to_write_so000644 000765 000024 00000000273 15251306204 042722 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main157 path=text_english/personal/main/go_back_to_xy_format_I_just_wish_my_brain_would_stop_spinning_you_dont_have_to_write_something_here_every_fucking_day.md 30 mtime=1789234308.678253905 go_back_to_xy_format_I_just_wish_my_brain_would_stop_spinning_you_dont_have_to_write_something_her000644 000765 000024 00000000343 15251306204 043161 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-12 # Go back to XY format. I just wish my brain would stop spinning. You dont have to write something here every fucking day Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Title self-explanatory text_english/personal/main/lmao_at_this_dating_profile_photo_optimisation_guide.md000644 000765 000024 00000002124 15225745217 032204 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-15 # Lmao at this dating profile photo optimisation guide Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [link to guide](https://nsokolsky.substack.com/p/how-to-take-a-perfect-dating-photo) - [link to photofeeler](https://www.photofeeler.com/my-tests#view/tf5nzvpevznzn4rz) - My main photo scored Smart 4.8, Trustworthy 7.2, Attractive 6.2. Which is basically a bad rating. Also got a note "I think they seem a bit uncomfortable in this photo." - I appreciate the honesty though, that such a service offers. - More evidence in favour of the fact that I should just ask a friend to make the entire profile. Me putting more effort is making my profile less likeable than someone who puts less effort and just optimises superficial stuff. I clearly have bad judgment here due to previous emotional hangups (which I am now going to maybe give up). - Idk now the hangup has shifted to something like - if I make the profile, it will be authentic. If I am finally accepting that I must use an inauthentic profile, then I might as well delegate the entire task to a friend. text_english/personal/main/on_forgiving_people_who_havent_asked_for_your_apology.md000644 000765 000024 00000005672 15205214036 032406 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-26 # On forgiving people who haven't asked for your apology Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - "How do you forgive people who haven't asked for your apology?" - I have clearly been mad at (my mind sim of) the world for a long time, because I think other people's inaction is directly going to get me killed or enslaved with significant probability. - This anger doesn't seem particularly productive, atleast so far. It is not helping me orient all that better (yet) to the problem. It is not helping me persuade others. - Maybe in the long run this anger might still be productive? Persuasion is a long term game. Doing stuff myself is a long term game. You can accept short-term downsides for a long-term game. - The anger feels very clearly based on truth though. It is straightforwardly true that inaction of most people (in my friend circle, on lesswrong, in many other social circles I have met) is literally going to get me killed or enslaved with significant probability. I don't want to die, and I don't think I have done anything (yet) that deserves me being murdered. - Maybe I should rephrase the question from "how do you forgive people who haven't asked for your apology?" to "Should you forgive people who haven't asked for your apology?" - Why do I even want to forgive these people? I guess it is not actually about forgiveness, I don't really care either way whether these people are forgiven or not, fuck them, they are not so important. It is about me. I don't want to stay this angry all the time, a major reason being it is not clear how this is helping me, and ofcourse anger feels bad. It's pure downside in the short-term, and while I say "truth" is the long-term justification, the actual long-term upside is not anywhere close in sight. Main 2 - I find myself instinctively going "yay" when Peter Thiel says "madness of crowds, not wisdown of crowds." It is true that "normal people" will totally genocide each other under the right circumstances, most people have no actual principles. - I want to tell people that they don't need all that much to survive. Worship your God, metaphorically speaking. You can aim for far bigger things if you realise you aren't going to carry your money or your immediate friend circle to your grave. I think staring at death reminds me how little is truly important. I mean, I knew some of this even before I thought about death, but thinking about death has accelerated it. - Why do these people even matter? Like I said, they are not going to be there at my funeral, so why do I care? Oh right, I care because they are the ones who are going to get me killed in the first place. - note to self - I am taking few hours break from work to finish this note, it seems important. Chaos chaos chaos - Literally no one has a plan. People without a plan don't get much of a right to shut down other people's plans, in my worldview. Inaction is also an action and the consequences are death. text_english/personal/main/X_meditated_after_long_Y_went_average.md000644 000765 000024 00000001421 15257203626 026751 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-30 # X: Meditated after long. Y: Went average Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Was disappointed in the morning due to some stuff. After meditating, disappointment gone. (Although counterfactually if I hadn't meditated it might have gone too idk). Wanted to masturbate lol, that was the only persistent feeling pulling me away from sitting the full 30 min. - Emuyumi couple is so happy it is actually kinda sad. Like, not only are they attractive ofcourse, but they feel so clearly safe with each other. - Might lowkey consider meditating more in future, just to see if anything has changed compared to last year when I tried it. Side note - Current hinge profile seems to be performing not terrible? Need more data, will report later. text_english/personal/main/X_received_more_hinge_advice_from_friend.md000644 000765 000024 00000000447 15250706226 027445 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-11 # X: Received more hinge advice from friend Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Compromise position agreed on - mention poly on first date but not on profile - Advice implemented. Will report results in some weeks maybe. - [Rest of notes private.]PaxHeader/which_places_in_india_are_statistically_likely_to_contain_women_who_appreciate_the_type000644 000765 000024 00000000257 15237037256 042637 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main145 path=text_english/personal/main/which_places_in_india_are_statistically_likely_to_contain_women_who_appreciate_the_types_of_value_I_offer.md 30 mtime=1786527406.469828058 which_places_in_india_are_statistically_likely_to_contain_women_who_appreciate_the_types_of_value_000644 000765 000024 00000004327 15237037256 043072 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-08-12 # Which places in India are statistically likely to contain women who appreciate the types of value I offer? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - See also: [Date me](./date_me.md) - See also: [Dating and my outlier traits](./dating_and_my_outlier_traits.md) - I'm clearly uninterested in the mainstream dating standards which is basically looks, humour, status, and mainstream status hierarchy which is basically corporate job, hobbies, getting along with both families, etc - Some things I am outlier extreme on include: IQ, honesty, independence, courage, protectiveness - I am looking for atheist liberal women so that is obviously another filter. - For IQ, honesty and independence, my current circles in tech startups are actually not bad. Some people inclined towards academia also count here (not all value "independence" but some do). - For courage and protectiveness, however, I actually wonder if I should be spending more time around army people lol. My guess is they are low independence, respect chain-of-command, etc, but atleast they value courage and protectiveness. - There are some places where I can find such people, maybe I should visit them more. [Rest of details private.] - I am also not that interested in the whole politics and art/music/dance cluster? Like, I am interested but I am not **that** interested. Like, if I could guarantee a balanced gender ratio in both places, my guess is that I would rather learn combat-adjacent skills like radio and shooting and swimming and (ofcourse) hacking and so on, than I would learn more music and dance and whatever. - Note to self - No more theorising, actually go attend atleast a few events in such places and then report back. --- - Update - Based on Big Five results, I should also include high openness to experience and high conscientiousness here - I don't know, I feel like high openness to experience filters in a very different direction compared to some of the other traits listed. I think I am still open to new experiences but in small doses only. So while I can appreciate someone else who is high openness to experience, I can't fully join them in all their whatever. - Ending note because I said no more theorising. text_english/personal/main/redaction_policies_are_boring.md000644 000765 000024 00000003163 15177753505 025345 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-18 # Redaction policies are boring Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I seem to have mild aversion, not very strong, to starting the leaking project more seriously, with the reason being boredom? - Reasoning about minutae of redaction policies is, beyond a point, quite boring. - On one hand, this is literally a matter of life or death. - People will live or die by the choices I make. Assange literally got people killed while he was still operating, and that will be on his conscience even today. - As a founder, one of my primary roles will be figuring out the morality aka redaction policy so our group doesn't splinter apart. - On a bigger picture, the destruction of all life on Earth is on my head, and my response to that is, solving this is boring? Are you fucking kidding me? I wanna just shout at myself so hard for that. - My desire for novelty is too fucking high, man. I need to figure out some project where I believe in it enough that I can just grind through the boring parts. Considering my insatiable desire for novel work, it seems likely I will have to at some part of just force myself through the drudgery. That is the only way to get good work out of me. - Visakanv might be wrong lol. The maximally fun project is not the maximally impactful project. Idk, PG also says follow curiosity. I wish these people backed up their shit with more examples, and more importantly, counterexamples. That might make me take them more seriously. I literally don't have time to do a meta-analysis of all great work ever, to check if any of them is right. **Important, ask gpt-5 tomorrow to do the meta-analysis.** text_english/personal/main/optimal_medication_for_simple_stuff.md000644 000765 000024 00000001343 15242242170 026564 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-22 # Optimal medication for simple stuff Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - It is weird I have reached 25 years of age and still haven't figured out optimal medications for myself. - Commonly used by people - Cough, chest congestion - Dextromethorphan, Diphenhydramine, Ambroxol, Guaifenesin - Allergic rhinitis - Cetirizine, Levocetirizine, Fexofenadine - What I typically use - Probably Diphenhydramine ("Benadryl cough formula" in India, benadryl has multiple variants) and Fexofenadine ("Allegra" in India) - But most importantly, I have not actually A-B tested these against the alternatives. I guess I fall sick infrequently enough that I didn't bother to actually make notes. text_english/personal/main/dont_sleep_deprive_yourself_go_to_sleep.md000644 000765 000024 00000001551 15225762006 027465 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-16 # Don't sleep deprive yourself, go to sleep Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I changed my hinge profile to something extremely different from my old profile. Part of me is excited to swipe a bit and see how it performs. - But also, because I am still feeling somewhat feeling neurotic, I am intentionally choose not to swipe today. Will do so another day. - I notice myself wanting to deliberately stay up late and sleep deprive myself. I now know that sleep deprivation is one of the tricks to force myself to be more curious and less resentful of people. (Just like saying using substances previously, or 2 hours of a hobby that requires complete focus, or similar.) - Don't deliberately use sleep deprivation in this way, this is not a healthy tactic to keep using so frequently. - Good night - Will go hug the bear text_english/personal/main/optimal_moral_strategy_is_to_think_you_are_altruistic.md000644 000765 000024 00000001541 15177753505 032456 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-11 # Optimal moral strategy is to think you are altruistic Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I just noticed recently that if I was only interested in saving my own life, I am willing to get a few hundred people killed at best. But if I was interested in saving the whole world, I would even be willing to get a hundred million people killed. - This is also guesswork, it is hard to guess in advance of actually facing the situation, how I would react. - "Capitalism" is the most popular moral justification for hurting people at scale. There are multiple other justifications. - If you are a politician or billionaire, it seems like it is better for you to think of yourself as altruistic (not just pretend that for the public), because thinking of yourself as altruistic **reduces** the constraints on what you can or cannot do, morally speaking. text_english/personal/main/mount_everest_will_be_destroyed.md000644 000765 000024 00000000466 15177753505 026000 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-30 # Mount Everest will be destroyed (?) Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Google Earth in 3D mode is absolutely stunning. I saw some Indian cities, and saw Mount Everest on it. - What the fuck is wrong with these people? - I'm now sad even this is on track to being destroyed. Angry then sad. PaxHeader/X_you_are_in_contact_with_multiple_women_you_have_nonzero_interest_in_Y_you_seem_more_o000644 000765 000024 00000000275 15226206601 042713 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main159 path=text_english/personal/main/X_you_are_in_contact_with_multiple_women_you_have_nonzero_interest_in_Y_you_seem_more_optimistic_about_life_as_a_result.md 30 mtime=1784221057.945691528 X_you_are_in_contact_with_multiple_women_you_have_nonzero_interest_in_Y_you_seem_more_optimistic_a000644 000765 000024 00000005345 15226206601 043173 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-07-16 # X: You are in contact with multiple women you have non-zero interest in. Y: You seem more optimistic about life as a result Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Title should be self-explanatory. Spending time with women, especially with women I like, seems to be one of the few things that still happens to give me some joy in this world. - My mood over past few days how oscillated between maybe 4/10 and 5/10. Hence this is fine, if any of these interests work out, that would be awesome, if they don't work out, also fine I will move on. - The danger comes if I was say at 2/10 in mood, hypothetically. Then if I had interacting with women I'm interested in as the only thing that gives me joy, then this becomes a recipe for unhealthy dependence. (You have many experiences from the far past around this, but not any recent ones, thankfully.) - I don't know, man, since 2024 it is not obvious to me I have truly liked anyone lol. It feels nice to actually like people again. Practical takeaway - **important** - Maybe I should join more meetups and hobby groups? - My hinge profile is still shit so I met most of these people via meetups and hobby groups only. - Based on previous data, prefer meetups and hobbies with non-terrible gender ratio, where you can eventually play an active not a passive role, and where you enjoy the hobby atleast a little bit (and hence interacting with women is not the only reason you are there). - Note to Samuel for 2026-07-17 (tomorrow) - Actually go sign up for more meetups / hobby groups. Like art or music or something - Also maybe learn to shoot? That is a hobby you've been postponing for a long time, but it is useful. Become more dangerous. There is a reason I am working on cyberattack not assassination, but in some edge case / worst case situations (not elaborating here), it cold end up useful to know how to shoot as well. Side note - When I say I'm more optimistic about life, I do not mean my P(doom) has changed. I mean I am more optimistic that the next few months / years of my life can actually be happy, instead of a miserable grind. And maybe less resentful of society at large (maybe, not sure about this part). - Work feels like a grind. Like, I don't have a magic button I can press and leak all these AI company secrets in next 3 months. It is going to be a long grind. I have to learn to write secure software. I still have a lot of hit and trial left to go there. It is a doable grind, none of this is rocket science, but also, it is not a task where I will see returns quickly. Side note 2 - I am happy I am going back to the X Y format instead of pure theory. I feel tired but also on top of the fucking world, atleast a little bit. Let's fucking go text_english/personal/main/X_met_someone_this_week_Y_received_possibly_useful_advice.md000644 000765 000024 00000000302 15253246701 033120 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-18 # X: Met someone this week. Y: Received possibly useful advice Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Title self-explanatory. [Rest of notes private.] text_english/personal/main/maybe_organise_a_dollar_auction_or_similar.md000644 000765 000024 00000000736 15217735314 030076 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-27 # Maybe organise a dollar auction or similar Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Maybe I can organise dollar auction or something unimportant like this, somewhere impromptu where there is a lot of crowd, just to see what happens. - I've organised these types of stuff before, might wanna do it again but better. Just to force myself to interact with more people. This time not forcing myself to talk to them about ASI risk though. text_english/personal/main/combine_your_alphas.md000644 000765 000024 00000001240 15211077711 023316 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-07 # Combine your alphas Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - First time I was like holy shit this actually worked - was writing the whistleblower guide and cold DMing people. I was surprised by how many people read it. (Can't write some details here because this is a public document) - Second time I was like holy shit this actually worked - was organising the protest at the impact summit. I was surprised they didn't stop me. - I should consider combining both techniques to recruit someone. Find a place with high density of engineering students, and just repeat the same thing. text_english/personal/main/lmao_tsunami_in_the_middle_of_band_playing.md000644 000765 000024 00000000302 15234163352 030023 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-04 # lmao. tsunami in the middle of band playing Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [link to source](https://youtu.be/Xq6poNe5k0A?si=0CY9eAMTEW9jeybR)text_english/personal/main/I_finally_understand_how_indian_monsoon_works.md000644 000765 000024 00000013112 15236713014 030626 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-12 # I finally understand how indian monsoon works Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends (?) Main - [Link to my SE question from 2015](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4309/why-does-the-inter-tropical-convergence-zone-shift) - I finally understood this answer lol, the english went past my head as a kid. - [This wikipedia gif explaining Hadley cells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#/media/File:1991-2020_NCEP-NCAR_reanalysis_1_Hadley_cell_stream_function.gif) also helped a lot. - Simpler explanation, if I understand this correctly: - Position of Earth in orbit and axis determines which region gets most of sun's energy. This region is called the ITCZ. Earth's tilted axis means this region is not always at the equator, it moves towards northern hemisphere during June to September and towards southern hemisphere during November to March. Earth's tilted axis is the only reason Earth has seasons. - Hot air rises upward in the region that gets most of sun's energy. Relatively colder air enters from land nearby, creating surface winds (which are detectable by people living here). Hadley cells get setup, as shown in the figure. - Precipitation can occur if the surface winds coming from the region with less solar energy (i.e. colder region) are in fact coming from an ocean. This means they are carrying high humidity with them. They eventually heat up when reaching the hot region, then move upwards and carry this humidity upwards towards the colder stratosphere. When sufficient water vapour is accumulated in these clouds, precipitation happens. (This is the major reason for Indian monsoon.) - This is also why areas near water bodies in general get more intense precipitation. --- Asked by ghosts_in_the_code 2015-01 > I am currently learning at school about the climatic conditions (mainly winds, difference in pressure, Coriolis effect, etc.) that cause and affect the monsoons received by India. > > One of the factors mentioned is the shift of the Inter tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) towards the Ganga plain in the summers. I tried reading up on Wikipedia to understand this better (here especially), but couldn't understand much. > > Could someone explain, in simple terms, > (a) What the ITCZ and monsoon trough are? Are they just regions of low pressure? > (b) What causes this to shift away from the equator? > (c) Does 'convergence' have anything to do with all of this? Answered by Peter Jansson 2015-01 > On a broader scale the ITCZ and monsoons are related. This is because the global circulation shifts as a result of the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the orbit around the sun. In northern hemisphere summer, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun and receives more radiation (energy) than the southern, and vice versa for northern winter, The southern hemisphere is affected in the same way. Without the tilt we would not experience any seasons. > > In the tropics the largest amount of energy reaches the region where the sun is at the zenith. In northern summer this region is north of the equation, where as in winter it is at the south. At the spring and fall equinox it coincides with the equator. Hence the region of maximum energy input wanders seasonally to the north and south of the equator. > > Climatologically the region with maximum energy input sets up a circulation in the form of so-called Hadley cells where warm air rises where it is heated the most and then transported at elevation to the north and south. At the location of upward air flow formation of convective clouds yielding precipitation becomes the norm. This zone to which ground winds flow towards the region of maximum energy influx is the ITCZ and because the zone of maximum solar energy influx wanders, the ITCZ flows. The zone is fairly wide so the regions around the equator sees the effects of tropical precipitation more or less without seasonality, actually two rain periods and two drier periods as the ITCZ moves once to the north and once to the south over the region each year. Away from the equator the resulting period of precipitation becomes more and more marked as one moves to the north and south resulting in strongly seasonal rains. > > This movement of the large scale circulation on the earth produces several associated effects and the different monsoons are such phenomena. There are several monsoons on the earth created by weather phenomena typical for the specific region. The Asian monsoon is perhaps the most known. The specific conditions leading up to this monsoon is found in the high elevation Tibetan plateau. During the northern winter the plateau sees a larger high pressure forming which generates winds flowing south over India and causing a dry climate. During the northern summer large parts are heated generating a low pressure over land which draws in moist air from the sea yielding strong precipitation. Hence the monsoon follows the same seasonality as is seen in the wander of the ITCZ but the cause for the regional change in seasonal wind and precipitation pattern has a different cause. > > So to understand the large scale weather systems and their seasonal patterns, you must start by understanding how solar energy drives the atmospheric circulation. This causes a specific and typical pattern which is locally disrupted by the distribution of land and oceans on the earth. Land masses can be heated more and more quickly than oceans on a seasonal basis, land masses also includes topography that can impede the atmospheric circulation, so it it perhaps obvious that land masses contribute on regional and local scales. text_english/personal/main/there_will_be_no_forgiveness.md000644 000765 000024 00000005456 15204605327 025225 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-24 # There will be no forgiveness Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - speaking aloud, may not endorse on reflection Main - I just calmed down - I don't know if I even wanna sit and describe what happened. Some things can only be experienced, they can't be put into words. - (Or atleast, I don't know how to.) - I don't know, just visualising murdering lots of people in pretty graphic detail. I am angry enough to kill lots of people. I could make notes about all the details but what does it matter. It could matter if someone else is reading this, but I don't care. I don't care. Go fuck yourself, anyone reading this. - I will slaughter a billion of you, before a single one of me. - I am just deeply truly mad about all of you who are going to get me killed. - What in the ever loving fuck am I doing with my life? This shitty flat and this shitty city and these *** people, the shallow games they play, and all the lies. - Even if I survive this, and like yes, there is still a possibility we survive this ... I still have atleast 60% chance of no ASI by 2035. Even if we survive this, **there will be no forgiveness.** I don't know if I will ever be able to forgive these people for doing nothing while they watch me die. I don't just mean the bastards at the companies themselves, I mean the entire fucking humanity. Bastards. I don't have time to be angry - I don't know, there's also a small voice in my head telling me "you dont have time to be angry." I can keep swearing at these people on the internet for years together, there is no end. These people will never change. Shouting at them won't change them. Judging them won't change them. I have to wake them up. I don't know how to wake them up. Shame on me for not knowing how. I can still learn. There is still time. - This is rage I will carry for the rest of my life. - Hells within hells within hells. - Hell is knowing that your anger at the other person is hurting you not the other person. - Hell within hell is knowing that even though your anger is only hurting you, not the other person, you will still remain angry and you have no choice in the matter. - Why can't I choose? - Why can't I just hyperstition myself into not being angry? It's almost funny - I have often wondered, I could just make a video chanting slogans "Death to Elon Musk. Death to Ilya Sutskever. Death to Marc Andressen. Death to Shane Legg." and so on. - What is even the point? - How do you wake up the living dead? - It's like, I get out of my room and there's just this endless zombie horde, the unborn, the testament to our failure, the sheep ready for the slaughter. Ten thousand years of history wiped out in the blink of an eye. Maybe I should not work tomorrow - I actually feel a bit physically ill. Maybe I should just chill. idk. goodbye text_english/personal/main/miscellanous_list_of_emotionally_intense_experiences_of_my_life.md000644 000765 000024 00000005362 15226452125 034447 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-17 # Miscellaneous list of emotionally intense experiences I have had Disclaimer - personal - target audience - not very sure honestly. I first wrote this while trying to figure out what to put on my hinge profile, but I can imagine other types of people also being interested in reading this Main - The first time I started singing after coming out of the worst depression of my life. - The first time I played basketball with friends after coming out of the worst depression of my life. - This girl in my coaching centre who appreciated me for putting my pen between my specs and my nose. - Purchasing a large brown teddy bear. - Reading Mockingjay the 20th time and reminding myself that everything and everyone I care about can be taken from me. - Spending two hours watching this sunset from Champhai, Mizoram. Being asked by some people to leave their roof. - Adults may not trust you depending on the place, but children will if you smile. - Spending the day with a beggar in Kolkata. - Teaching young kids and realising that younger kids are cooperative by default, but older kids get trained to be competitive instead. Realising that these kids were actually excited to see me, and not pretending. - Reading federalist papers and realising nothing is new under the sun, when it comes to designing new political institutions. - Reading Thomas Sowell, loved it for distilling that the core of politics is self-interest, and that human behaviour is emergent not designed. - Reading the Principia sitting in a isolated arunachali village, and feeling more disconnected from society than I knew was possible. - The war museum in Ho Chi Minh City that taught me how propaganda truly works. Same for a museum about Bangladeshis somewhere in NE india I don't remember. - Kissing someone on the beach. - The first time I fell in love. - Travel making me realise I can empathise with people very far outside my social circle, and that I should not lose the ability to do this. - Watching everyone from a skyscraper and visualising everyone die. - A person from a small town whose life was objectively far worse than mine, yet was still happier than me. - A house painter I met on a bus. - The satisfaction of meeting someone after searching for them for two full months. - The realisation that people are the only thing that make my life worth living. - Being kicked out by multiple landlords because I did not have my parents' permission to stay. - The dirtiest hotel in chandini chowk I have stayed in, and wanting to cry the whole time. - Eating pakodas in a hostel mess with a group of friends. - A farmer whose family I drew for them because I was in too much pain to know what else to do. - The realisation that you cannot escape the contents of your mind. text_english/personal/main/I_dont_discuss_my_personal_life_with_strangers.md000644 000765 000024 00000001374 15177753505 031024 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-02 # I don't discuss my personal life with strangers Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - target audience - anyone visiting my private website Main - I think we might eventually be heading towards a world with zero privacy. I wanted to experiment with this for myself to get first-hand data of what that is like. - However, just because I posts lots of details of my private life online, doesn't mean I am open to discussing it with strangers. - As an analogy, imagine a house where the windows are open but the door is shut. Just because you can see everything in my life, doesn't mean you are invited. - You can ofcourse graduate from "stranger" to "friend" by earning my trust and stuff, and then discussing whatever. I am open to making new friends. PaxHeader/credits_belongs_to_the_man_in_the_arena_not_the_one_watching_from_the_sidelines_with_a_000644 000765 000024 00000000277 15246254470 042527 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main161 path=text_english/personal/main/credits_belongs_to_the_man_in_the_arena_not_the_one_watching_from_the_sidelines_with_a_morality_shaped_stick_up_their_ass.md 30 mtime=1788434744.912525455 credits_belongs_to_the_man_in_the_arena_not_the_one_watching_from_the_sidelines_with_a_morality_sh000644 000765 000024 00000000632 15246254470 043024 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-09-03 # Credit belongs to the man in the arena, not the one watching from the sidelines with a morality-shaped stick up their ass Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Rant post. - Someone's mind sim still hasn't left my mind. - Do not loop your attention on this point. Whatever you pay attention to begins to loop on itself. These people are not worth your attention. text_english/personal/main/I_am_surprisingly_immune_to_murder_footage.md000644 000765 000024 00000001224 15177753505 030150 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-25 # I am surprisingly immune to murder footage Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I watched my share of murder footage in my teenage, possibly to test whether I could watch it or not. Morbid curiosity. - I thought maybe I had changed (I have, in several ways). I searched some footage today too, and I do still find it surprisingly normal? Some police shootings and ofcourse, the ISIS killings - I am a bit uncomfortable about gore (large amounts of blood) but apart from that I don't really care that much? - If I had to kill someone I would definitely prefer methods involving less blood, just so that I am not squeamish during the process. text_english/personal/main/date_me.md000644 000765 000024 00000036517 15257150252 020713 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-30 original written in early 2026, consistently making edits since then # Date me Disclaimer - target audience - potential partner, or someone who can refer me to one - [Notes to self shifted to separate document](./date_me_notes_to_self.md) ## Table of contents - About me as a partner - My photos - Link to my personal website - Hobbies and personal experiences - My outlier personality traits - About my ideal partner - Mandatory criteria - Nice-to-have but not mandatory criteria - Criteria I don't use when filtering people - Some more notes that may or may not be relevant - Contact me - Referral system ## About me as a partner Note - **This section is significantly still a work in progress.** I am unlikely to complete it soon. ### My photos top 5 <img src="../../../non_text_non_video/self_solo_pics/5.JPG" alt="drawing" width="300"/> d�rawing draw�ing drawing� drawing more drawing drawing drawing drawing drawing <img src="../../../non_text_non_video/self_solo_pics/8.JPG" alt="drawing" width="300"/> dr�awing drawi�ng drawing drawing drawing ## [Link to my personal website](../about_me_personal.md) - This has a lot of information on my personal life, feel free to scroll to what is relevant ### Hobbies and personal experiences Note - In particular, I have received feedback from multiple people to emphasise my posts on my hobbies, and on emotional experiences, hence I've placed them here. I personally don't like hobbies being given this much prominence in a "date me" document, but I currently trust the judgment of the people who gave this feedback, over my own judgement. Main - [Miscellaneous list of emotionally intense experiences of my life](./miscellanous_list_of_emotionally_intense_experiences_of_my_life.md) - If you want to understand some experiences that shaped me, at an emotional level - Crossposting all the hobbies links from there: - [Music I like](./music.md) - includes recordings of me playing drums and singing - [Food I like](./food_I_like.md) - [Board games I like](./board_games_I_like.md) - [Swimming](./swimming.md) - [Dance](./dance.md) - I am open to doing any hobby together, or being introduced to new hobbies. (For example, jamming together if you play an instrument, or playing board games, or similar.) ### My outlier personality traits - See also: [My personality test results](../../connect_with_me/my_personality_test_results.html) - As per Big Five personality test, I am above 90 percentile on Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. - As per Ray Dalio personality test, I am above 90 percentile on Creativity, Adventurous, Independence and not Status-seeking. - As per Ray Dalio personality test, I am 52 percentile Reliable. I think I am most reliable as a support during emergencies but tend to avoid making promises if there is no emergency. - My guess is I am above 90 percentile honest. - My guess is I am above 75 percentile IQ. - My guess is I am above 75 percentile on courage and protectiveness (of a potential partner). (A lot of the above will become obvious to you if you either browse my website more, or else ask me more questions in person.) ## About my ideal partner I am looking for someone who satisfies following criteria: ### Mandatory criteria Note - Most of these mandatory criteria are either common sense, or lessons I've learned the hard way. Mandatory criteria - You are a (cis) woman in age bracket 18-40. (For reference, I was born in 2001.) - You are living in, or willing to shift to, a tier-1 city in India. As of 2026-09, I live in Bangalore. - I have been living in India my whole life, but might shift cities in future in order to achieve my life goals. - There is a small (but non-trivial) likelihood that you can successfully persuade me or help me shift if you live in a diferent country. - Cannot discuss details here for political reasons. - I ideally want a polyamorous long-term relationship. Otherwise, a short-term relationship - You are intellectually curious - You are not fat - You are accepting of my life goals - Disagreeing with me over my life goals is fine. Not accepting me is not fine. - I am a capital A Atheist who worships at the altar of technological progress, if done safely. This is more of a religious quest to me, rather than a "career." It gives me a sense of pupose and identity, and is a primary driver behind many of my major life decisions. - (Ideal but not mandatory) You also are an atheist who cares deeply about technological progress, if done safely. You are willing to go as far as I am, in pursuit of the same goal. - In order to further my life goals, I deeply value the pursuit of Knowledge/Science and Power/Ruthlessness (as opposed to Passion/Freedom, Community/Order or Nature/Harmony/Acceptance). This is from magic the gathering colour wheel. - (Ideal but not mandatory) You also have a life goal that centres around the pursuit of either Knowledge/Science or Power/Ruthlessness. - I am willing to die for my goals. - (Mandatory) You accept that I may end up in prison or dead as a result of my work. You accept that there may be an increased risk to you as well, for associating with me frequently. - I am willing to kill for my goals. - (Mandatory) You accept me though I will in rare circumstances use violence or threats of violence to protect myself or people I care about. (This could include protecting you, if and only if you want me to). - I wish to spend (what might be) the last few years of my life with my attention primarily focussed on my life goals. - (Mandatory) You don't require meeting me more than once a week. You understand that I have goals I wish to devote time to, and don't see this as competition for my attention. - If I am put in an adversarial scenario where I am forced to choose between keeping my life goals and keeping my partner, and I cannot keep both, I will choose my life goal. I am hopeful I will never enter a scenario this adversarial, however. - You are accepting of the fact I may change my core values, worldview and actions in the future. - You have a significant capabity to accept people even if they make significant changes to their core values, worldview and actions. - (This is vague and abstract, but I don't know how to make less vague and abstract.) - You are accepting of the fact I am often unhappy. - (Update - 2026-09) My mood averaged over the last 3 months has been Average. My mood averaged over the last 12 months has been Below Average. - I don't necessarily expect you to be a good listener for my problems (although it wouldn't hurt if you did). Often the easiest solution for me is to just spend time alone when I am unhappy, and meet you when I am doing better. - I have tried very hard to fix my unhappiness over multiple years. I am hopeful I will fix this in the upcoming years, but I can't promise it. - (Based on previous experience, multiple women had an issue with this, it is possible you are different.) ### Nice-to-have but not mandatory criteria Note - **If you match even half of the below criteria, you should consider yourself a good fit, atleast in theory. I don't have a very deep understanding of my own preferences so this list is low confidence guesses.** Nice-to-have but not mandatory criteria, based on previous experiences with dating - You are highly independent yourself, or willing to move towards a position where you are eventually highly independent. This includes financially, emotionally, etc. I can help with this ofcourse. - You also prefer Ask culture not Guess culture. - I am fairly blunt. I can tone this down if requested, but only to some extent. - (Based on previous experience, multiple women had an issue with this, it is possible you are different.) - You are capable of appreciating some aspects of life: - You are high on Openness to Experience. - But also you understand I will not always be in for spontaneous plans in my current phase of life, because I have other priorities. - You have a unique perspective on or appreciation for atleast one important aspect of life, which I currently lack. - You are in a different profession from the ones I most frequently interact with by default (software/finance). - You are a simple person. - You are not asexual or aromantic. - You actively enjoy regular sex as part of a relationship. - You are capable of experiencing love as an emotion distinct from sexual attraction. - I am fine with it if you are attractive to me but not like, extremely attractive. - I think this tends to matters less once you fall in love. I do have a preference for more attractive women, but I am unlikely to reject someone just because they're not in the top 25 percentile of conventional beauty standards, for example. Nice-to-have but not mandatory criteria, based on my guesses about the future and/or only loosely related previous experiences - You want kids at some point - I don't have a strong opinion on this topic yet, but my weak opinion is I want kids some years later, once there is more clarity on what the world plans to do regarding artificial superintelligence and human genetic engineering. - If you want kids with me, you should be atheist so we don't conflict over how to raise the kid. - You have atleast one long-term goal in life that you are actually serious about. You value delayed gratification. - My guess is I am capable of accepting people from a wide variety of worldviews, even if I vehemently disagree with them. I am okay with significant political disagreement. - That being said, I will find it easiest to accept and understand you if your life goal has significant overlap with mine. (Mentioned at the top of this document.) I could find it a bit harder to understand or accept you if the **only** goal you care about is maximising sexual experience or consuming a lot of substances or climbing job ladder or purchasing a house or raising kids. - If you regularly consume substances, we may have to meet less frequently, as I would like to stay sober. Ideally you don't regularly consume substances. - Ideally you have growth mindset, not purely complacence/acceptance mindset. If your problems are affecting me, I am more likely to expect you to put effort towards fixing them, and have growth mindset about it. ### Criteria I don't use when filtering people Criteria I don't use, based on previous experiences - I am fine with a difference in socioeconomic class or level of education (as long as you are intellectually curious). - I am fine with you having different lifestyle or spending habits from me. - I am fine with you having different hobbies. - I am fine with you not being good at giving me advice. I can get that from other sources. - I am fine with you not being particularly skilled at providing emotional support, i.e. making me feel seen/heard/understood. It is the thought that counts. Criteria I don't use, based on my guesses about the future and/or only loosely related previous experiences - I am fine with you having physical or mental health issues. - I prefer people with growth mindset here. - I am fine with moderate differences in political opinion. - I am fine with a large age gap in either direction (within legal limits). - I don't care how many past or current partners you have. - As mentioned above, I would prefer you have a long-term goal in life that isn't maximising sexual experience. I would prefer you are capable of experiencing love as an emotion, distinct from sexual attraction. Given that you match these, my guess is I don't care how many past or current partners you have. ## Some more messy notes that may or may not be relevant Note - Here is a list of messy older notes I made during 2026-02 to 2026-06. I was mostly unhappy during this timeframe, and some of the notes maybe be overly theoretical or neurotic. Yet, I think they have non-zero useful insight so I am linking them here regardless. List of messy notes - navigating value differences in relationaships - In the long run (10-50 year timeframe), I suspect this is the single most important thing for maintaining relationships. - [Dating master post compiled using AI](./dating_master_post_compiled_using_ai.md) - [Maybe the solution to dating across political differences is to meet less often](./maybe_the_solution_to_dating_across_political_differences_is_to_meet_less_often.md) - ["Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept"](./actually_agree_versus_agree_to_disagree_yet_accept_versus_do_not_accept.md) - polyamory - I ideally don't want a short-term/casual relationship, I want to atleast aim for something long-term. (By long-term I mean lasting 10-50 years.) Whether we succeed or not is a different matter. I am aware that succeeding at finding something long-term could require a bunch of hit-and-trial with short-term. Also, I don't want to precommit to having sex with only one person till I die, that just instinctively seems like a terrible idea to me. - [Why I am polyamorous](./why_I_am_polyamorous.md) - kids - Weak opinion based on empirical evidence is that most (but not all) people who have kids don't counterfactually regret having them, and it gives them joy/meaning in life. I defer to views of people like Naval Ravikant and Paul Graham and Eliezer Yudkowsky here, atleast a little bit. I find being around kids fun for limited constrained interaction but sometimes annoying in larger doses. - why do people value me - [Dating and my outlier traits](./dating_and_my_outlier_traits.md) - who is my ideal partner - [More ramblings on who I think I wanna date](./more_ramblings_on_who_I_think_I_wanna_date.md) ## Contact me [Please reach out](../../connect_with_me/contact_me.md) if you are interested. ## Referral system Please also reach out if you can connect me to someone who might be interested. (For instance, you can send them this post.) - If you connect me to the right person, you will be doing me a huge favour, and I will make sure to repay the favour in whatever way you prefer. This could a favour in return, or a payment, or similar. - In particular, if you want to be paid, I can pay you $3000 for connecting me to someone I stay in a relationship with for atleast 5 years, and $600 for connecting me to someone I stay in a relationship with for atleast 1 year. text_english/personal/main/I_regret_donating_to_amf.md000644 000765 000024 00000003431 15250462543 024254 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-01 minor edits until 2026-09-10 # I regret donating to AMF Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I donated a significant fraction of my networth to Anti Malaria Foundation back in 2022. If I remember correctly it was between $30-40k. - I regret this donation. I now think investing in my future self to go attack a bigger problem was a wiser decision. - I was dealing with some personal shit (can't elaborate now for privacy reasons) and a vague sense of guilt (also can't elaborate now). I wanted to ensure impact of my life on this world was net positive, and back then I was not confident my future self would actually do anything positive in that way. So I figured atleast I should donate some money. - I am doing better now, and also much more optimistic that I am in a position where I can make a much larger impact on the world. - It is true that I probably saved somewhere between 5 and 10 lives in sub-Saharan Africa. A few kids would have grown to live mediocre lives under whichever dictator (probably in Burkina Faso or similar? haven't checked), instead of dying in their childhood. - I generally now lean towards fixing geopolitics, not poverty. If you have good political systems (like capitalism and democracy) </strike>, then poverty (basic food, water, shelter, medicine, etc) will get significantly erased on its own. - (update 2026-08-10) I am no longer confident in capitalism and democracy being sufficient to govern a civilisation much more technologically advanced than ours. I do still think fixing political systems is higher priority for me than donating to the poor though, it is just that what is a good political system is more undecided for me. - I believe there exist high leverage methods to fix geopolitics, and I might in future work on some of them. personal/main/X_I_met_a_friend_Y_I_got_convinced_I_dont_enjoy_social_interaction_much.md000644 000765 000024 00000010627 15217253166 035515 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-06-25 # X: I met a friend. Y: I got more convinced I don't enjoy social interaction much Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [I have lot of private notes about some interactions I've had recently.] - One point I think is safe to talk about publicly is just: maybe I just don't enjoy social interaction much. - Maybe this has nothing to do with ASI risk. Until now I was predicting all sorts of failure modes like I will lose motivation for current plans, or I will be angry with them, or they won't understand my grief. And like yes all of these are true and have totally happened in the past. But none of these have happened in more recent conversations, and **yet** I just think the conversations are meh, whatever, mildly positive but that's it. - Maybe this has nothing to do with who the person is (man or woman, younger or older, technical/non-technical, regardless of ideology or their stance on ASI risk) or what type of interaction they want (advice, emotional support, shared hobby etc). - If I look at my entire life, I can't point to any continuous period where I was sober and consistently enjoyed social interaction with a person for that time period. I only seemed to have enjoyed social interactions with people while not sober, at which point I have to genuinely wonder how much of the enjoyment was even because of the person. - I could empathise with people more while not sober, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't eventually get bored of them. Eventually even with them, I would end up with a cadence of meeting sometimes, talk something, whatever, etc. - At this point, I genuinely don't think I will enjoy social interaction even if I had a girlfriend. - Until now, I seem to have been telling myself stories around okay, maybe you are bored of interaction with men, maybe you'll enjoy interaction with women more. But honestly I'm not sure even that is true. - Like yes, I do think having sex with someone you love is great, I do plan to be there for such a person if they want someone to listen, or someone to give advice, or similar. But my honest guess in this moment (I could ofcourse be wrong) is that after a few months, and assuming I was sober the whole time, I will eventually get bored of anything beyond this bare minimum, even with this person, even if I love them. - This should be a valid preference to have? Like, it is not obvious to me there is something inherently wrong with this. - I would have preferred to be born into a mind and body that was capable of enjoying social interaction a lot more than this, but maybe I just, don't? And maybe I just need to adapt to this reality. - It is obviously still true that social interaction is the aspect of life I enjoy the most. I can't point to anything else I have consistently enjoyed more than this, for any time period. But I don't even enjoy social interaction that much. - One way of looking at this is calling it anhedonia or social anhedonia or whatever, and looking at it as a problem to be fixed. But another way of looking at is that this just normal and who I am lol. - People can give me a lot of unhappiness, even if they can give me very little happiness. - The upside of my good interactions is very little, and the downside of my bad interactions is high. The downside is things like white hot rage, loss of motivation for weeks, etc if a conversation goes particularly poorly. The upside is real too but maybe not that intense. - I am currently at neutral mood to be honest. Neutral / mildly positive. Neither happy nor unhappy. Neutral is good. Two hour fog - In my previous notes I wrote something about the "two hour fog" hypothesis, which is basically I seem to be able to connect with people better (empathise with them, be more curious about them, etc) if I force myself to endure 2 hours of paying attention to something that is not ASI risk. - This hypothesis is still live, and not necessarily invalidated by all my experiences of past couple of weeks. - Side Note - but maybe not being sober plays a similar effect, in order to cut the two hour fog. Maybe sleep deprivation plays a similar effect (I have past experiences here). Heck maybe even travel does that, although the discusson around travel is a lot more nuanced. Meta note - I am very happy this note is in the "X: I did X. Y: Response was Y" format. I can just look at this note and realise it feels Real in a way, because it follows this format. text_english/personal/main/bridge_between_worlds_of_violent_and_nonviolent_people.md000644 000765 000024 00000012127 15177753505 032543 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-05 # Bridge between worlds of non-violent and violent people Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - Thinking aloud, may not endorse after a lot of thought - Written to myself Main - I wish there existed an epistemic bridge between the most nonviolent and the most violent people in the world. - I first realised how wide this gap is when thinking about secrets. - You can get access to people's secrets consensually or non-consensually. - To consensually get access, the default route is to become a therapist or a priest or similar, and prove over a period of many years how non-violent you are. - To non-consensually get access, the default route is to join a intelligence agency as a spy, and prove over a period of many years that you are willing to be violent and obedient to your superiors. - I think people on both extremes have useful and valuable insights about the world. - I am pretty sure people like Naval Ravikant (self-claimed "ethical" billionaire) have been offered harems of child sex slaves by people like Kim Jong Un, in return for completing business deals. (I don't know if Naval and Kim Jong Un have literally met, but I'm sure this type of interaction is common.) When Naval Ravikant writes about being ethical, my guess is that one reason he writes this is because he wants people like Kim Jong Un to fuck off from his life. - On the other hand, if you read about some therapist's lives online, you get the sense that their social circle has been filtered so hard in favour of non-violent people, they genuinely will be clueless at gaining an actual inside view of someone like Ravikant or Kim Jong Un. They will be clueless when trying to understand why the US founding fathers wanted people to have guns, or why Mandela's wife wanted to pipe bomb people, or similar. They will just throw categorisation systems at people because they have no idea what it is like to be someone like this, from the inside. - To build good political systems, you need to understand the truly violent self-interested people. - If humanity is to survive the next 10 years, or the next 100, it would be a good idea to build political systems that can handle our transition to human genetic engineering or artificial superintelligence. - I think non-violent people are very naive at this. - Heck, I am far from non-violent and I think even I can be naive at this. - Example 1 - For instance, when I proposed a "zero privacy world" to some people, one person (indirectly) told me that if the world gives zero privacy to 99% of people, but some privacy to 1%, then all the black markets for weapons and drugs and similar will route through this 1%, and in worst case these people may literally come to run the world. - And yes, now I'm pretty convinced that if you really want to build a "zero privacy world", it has to be every person on Earth being public with no exceptions for any person or any activity, not even for having sex with your partner. If you can't do this, then zero privacy world probably won't work. - But my point is, I did not actually even realise this point about black markets. Someone else had to point this out me. This proves even I am capable of being naive about violent self-interested people think. - Example 2 - Stalin created two intelligence agencies, and asked them to purge dissidents from each other. Stalin waited for Hitler to invade cities first, so that he could reduce the number of men required to invade them himself. - This sort of violence actually requires a degree of creativity. It is not enough to just read about this afterwards, and be like "huh, that makes sense". If you are building a new political system, you need to be capable of thinking of such creative violent strategies **in advance**, and defend against them. Otherwise your paper thin system will crumble until real pressure just like literal communism crumbled under literal Stalin, and once it is crumbled you don't get a redo button so easily. - To build good political systems, you also need to understand true non-violence atleast a little. - I actually think I am not that good at understanding truly non-violent people. My first reaction when someone tells me they are non-violent is that this guy is a naive idiot who is lying to himself, he has copy-pasted this from some religion but will crumble when in a real crisis. - But there are also some truly principled non-violent people out there, and I genuinely have a poor understanding of what it is like to be them. - There are some therapists who are principled and non-violent, and atleast some of them probably became this way because they saw some source of violence in the past, maybe directly suffered at its hand, and decided to be nothing like that. - Like, imagine a therapist just spends 10 years working with divorcees and makes a lots of notes about it. If they aren't completely stupid, I am sure they have atleast some fine-grained nuanced insights about divorce that the average person (and me) don't understand at all. - I actually think my notes here are shorter because I suck at getting inside view picture of non-violent people. text_english/personal/main/light.md000644 000765 000024 00000004600 15177753505 020423 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-28 # Light Disclaimer - **Quick Note** 2026-04-28 - My hotel room is beautiful, one factor is big fucking window. It is by now strongly overdetermined that my mental health will improve atleast a little bit, if I shift to a room with big fucking window, back in India. 2026-04-20 - See also: Habryka on [why you should use CRI > 95, 2000-3000 K, sufficient lumens](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dWib7qinqymfxevE4/if-a-room-feels-off-the-lighting-is-probably-too-spiky-or) 2026-03-01 - [Read more on LW](https://www.lesswrong.com/w/lighting) and consider implementing. Likely by shifting yet again, but also maaaaybe experiment with purchasing articial industrial-grade light. Take decision fast. 2026-03-09 - Spent time at a coworking space with a huge amount of artificial lighting. I felt mildly bad simply at the thought of having to go back. Although my place is kinda well lit too. - This is yet another datapoint that huge amount of light actually makes you feel better. your place is not yet at the ceiling in terms of how much light makes you feel good. strongly consider shifting if only for the light reason 2026-03-15 - Just visited one, so, rooftop of building with open roof and glass walls is amazing. I remain genuinely confused why more houses aren't built with glass walls by default. - gpt-5 says (may contain hallucins) you can build a house out of luxwall enthermal plus with low-heat gain configuration, costs ~$200/m^2. - gpt-5 is not able to accurately reverse engineer bill of materials and tell me what is the biggest cost. For instance it said indium for airtight sealing but then I forced it to calculate the actual cost and it was less then $10/m^2. It also said evacuation time is high but that just means manufacturing equipment cost has to be amortized accordingly. If you did more bulk manufacturing, that cost should come down. - Conclusion - I can't see what stops someone from starting mass manufacturing such windows (very low IR allowed, very low heating via conduction, visible light allowed, aesthetics and color accuracy don't matter) 2026-03-18 - Visited other cafe. Conclusion - I like cafes and coworking spaces with no people and no noise and a big glass window with lots of sunlight. **Ideally I should just shift to a room with a big glass window.** (No matter how big you are thinking, think bigger. A wall made of glass is actually lowkey amazing.) text_english/personal/main/why_do_I_write_about_my_sex_life_online.md000644 000765 000024 00000005103 15177753505 027407 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-30 # Disclaimer post - Why do I write about my sex life online? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - NSFW - sex Main - I think the primary reason is just out of principle. I think there is significant probability that we are heading towards a world with zero privacy for everyone in the next 5-30 years. Multiple offence-defence balances seem to be shifting towards information coming out publicly not being kept secret. I am experimenting with this in my own life, to test the boundaries of how far I can go with this. Practice, not theory, is what matters ultimately. - By default, I lightly anonymise identities of other people around me when talking about it publicly, for example, identities of people I've had sex with. This means a couple minutes of google search won't reveal who I am talking about. However, it is possible that a dedicated attacker building custom tools could reveal this, and ofcourse a government investigation spending multiple years of labour could definitely reveal this. If you notice I have written something about you anonymised, but want it even more anonymised, then let me know, I will most likely comply. - By default, I am not interested in discussing my sex life with people I don't know well. Just because I have written about it here doesn't mean I am interested in discussing it with strangers. If we know each other well, then depending on circumstances, you are free to discuss it with me. Longer answer - I don't actually think my sex life is that interesting to be honest, as of 2026-04. I don't think it's likely you'll learn some deep secret about human sexuality from it. - I don't think being exhibitionist is a major driver for why I am doing this. It could be a minor driver though, although that discussion is nuanced and I won't have it in this post. - It is IMO likely that if lots of people's sex life was public, then you could identify trends and these will be quite valuable to society. In which case, I will just be yet another datapoint in this dataset. - I do think that the stakes of discussing the topic of sex are civilisation-scale. Differences of thought and action around sex/family/parenting seem one of the fundamental ideological dividers between people of different socioeconomic classes, of different religions and different nationalities. Whether a US-China technological arms race causes human extinction or whether we successfully build avert this by building a world government, may very well end up hinging on questions like whether US and Chinese citizens could atleast somewhat agree with each on the topic of sex/family/parenting. text_english/personal/main/universe_death_clock.md000644 000765 000024 00000002546 15177753505 023503 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-16 # Universe Death Clock Disclaimer - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - Link: [Universe Death Clock on youtube](https://youtu.be/F1CddzgVW14?si=haSuKTZxcUxhbVoh) - I first watched this probably in my teenage. - It is insane that our civilisation was even capable of deducing something like, just by precision manufacturing of the right type of lenses. - Staring at the thousands of buildings outside my window, I'm reminded atleast one building similar to this one contains parts of a radio telescope, that lets us make insane deductions like this. - If 4 centuries of progress post the Enlightenment was enough for us to see the other end of the universe, imagine what another century could let us do. - The stakes are so depressingly large. I recently watched the SB1047 video by Michael Trazzi. Want to shake awake every single person in the California legislature and show them this stuff. Motherfucker. I can only imagine what stupid crap must be running in the mind of the average legislator. - I want more scientifically accurate science fiction. I want people to actually create photorealistic art of stuff like this, without retreating to science fiction. - Maybe I should make it? I don't know. - This stuff can't be transmitted via video yet, you need to actually come here in-person and visit. Depth perception is real and important. text_english/personal/main/my_tattoo.md000644 000765 000024 00000001562 15244276377 021341 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-26 # My tattoo Disclaimer - personal - target audience - friends and potential friends Main - I got a tattoo back in 2023. It means independence. - Arrows = other people trying to sway you in different directions. Fire = me. House = me building a house to protect myself from the influence of other people - I spent a month reflecting on what values I was most likely to hold 30 years later, since tattoos are permanent. I realised many of the values I considered core to me as of 2023, could change on a long enough timeframe. But independence seemed like a value that was likely to persist. - (My AI timelines were not as pessimistic back then, I was more optimistic I would still be alive 30 years later, as compared to now in 2026.) - [Some of my motivations for getting the tattoo I will keep private.] --- Note to self - maybe upload a pic, not important text_english/personal/main/my_comment_on_alexey_guzeys_post.md000644 000765 000024 00000003244 15177753505 026204 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-13 # My comment on Alexey Guzey's post - See also: [Alexey Guzey's post that is sympathetic to commmunism](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Am8bYA1aoXuSGFg7w7NjlHXFZiSAEt_oAVITPYdNRGo/edit?tab=t.0) - Yes I literally posted this comment to him, and I think there's a high chance he read it. And I plan to preserve this here verbatim I think. > I am also a vaguely pro-capitalist person who also has had experiences similar to you. Drugs and prostitution are both illegal in my country, so I can't openly talk about either of them. So I cannot specify the exact details of what I mean when I use the word 'similar'. That being said, I think OpenAI is going to completely break capitalism if it builds ASI, and it is on track to kill literally billions of people, and that responsibility is in fact disproportionately on your head more than mine, because you work there. If you are considering resigning or whistleblowing, there's an actual guide for how to do so on my website. samuelshadrach.com > Reading your post hurt me because it reminded me yet again that actually people very similar to myself, people with the same intellect and ambition and courage and empathy and who knows what other traits, are in fact my bitterest enemies now. Realising that people this similar to myself are capable of wrecking this much damage upon this earth is what makes me lose my faith in humanity the most. The part I didn't mention in the comment (but maybe I should have? idk) - If I start a cycle of violence against you, atleast one rationalisation I am using is that you started the violence first. Not literally you, Guzey, but all the people at your company who think in certain ways. text_english/personal/main/how_does_thinking_about_my_morality.md000644 000765 000024 00000011045 15177753505 026636 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-14 ## Update - See also: [Amjad Masad on Beware the Metagame](https://amasad.me/meta) - add the caveat that ASI breaks all these silicon valley billionaire heuristics, and I don't have much confidence any of these people have a plan for ASI either. ASI risk is a bad-feedback-loop problem and maybe going a little bit more meta could make sense. - **I go too meta too often though, so I still need to the nudge of, go less meta, play the actual game, not the metagame.** --- 2026-03-06 # How does thinking about my morality cash out into real world actions as of 2026-03-05? Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** - **Incomplete** - some sections marked think more Main - I increasingly seem to get stuck in nerd snipes that are unproductive as opposed to productive, and waste my time. Hence I commit to asking myself once a day, how does this nerd snipe cash out into real world actions? - For thinking about morality, as of 2026-03-05, here is the answer: - Most important - I can stay long-term motivated to work on the leaking/hacking cluster of projects only if have clearer moral values. I find myself literally unable to work otherwise. - (update 2026-03-06) It is true that if I pursue a tight redaction policy, I will not get many people killed, and then I can sidestep all the moral questions by saying damage of our plan is low. However, leaving internal conflict around other questions unsolved still feels bad, and maybe this internal tension will still cloud my judgment? I don't know, will look at this tmrw. - Also - The primary way our morality will express itself is in terms of redaction policy, and to a lesser extent, in terms of what attack targets we choose. Morality is connected with anti-ASI political ideology which is connected with redaction policy. Who deserves privacy on what, and who does not? It is better if there's a coherent anti-ASI ideology that determines this, that many people believe in, and we don't have to invent an entire ideology ad-hoc. Just like communism or libertarianism or similar is a coherent political ideology that can answer moral questions in the real world. I have to personally decide a redaction policy I feel okay with, either alone, or with a future cofounder. - I currently have a redaction policy I seem okay with, but it is ad-hoc, and I would prefer a coherent political ideology shared with others, over something ad-hoc, if it can be invented quickly. - Increasingly feeling like this is a dead end, as in ROI on investing time in inventing new ideology is not there. Just stick to your ad-hoc redaction policy and make sure you can rewire your moral values to become okay with this. - I have to personally go meet irl or cold email or make posts online, to get hackers on our team. As the situation gets more grim, we will (hopefully) increasingly become capable of recruiting the best hackers in the world. Doing so requires alignment of my values with theirs, or I have to break these people psychologically and get them to change their values. This again requires some coherent value system and associated redaction policy I believe in. - One of the biggest failure modes of this entire plan is that we will get assimilated into Indian or Russian intelligence agencies, and have no freedom of our own. This is very bad. The best hackers in the world are not nationalist, and will not work for any org driven by nationalist ideology. I am also not nationalist, and am quite uninterested in working in any org driven by nationalist ideology. Our redaction policy cannot be decided by nationalism. For instance it would be bad if we just have to hand over all capabilities research that we steal, to Indian or Russian intelligence. (Wait, is that really so bad? These people are too incompetent to run an ASI lab anyway. To do - think more) We don't want to waste time on attack targets or projects that make sense from nationalist pov but not anti-ASI pov. (Like what? Spell out clear examples. To do - think more) - Avoiding this failure mode also requires me to have a clear value system that can attract competent hackers, who will even be willing to risk their life to say no to the Indian or Russian intelligence when necessary. - Also, I can get favours from friends, allies, etc more easily if our values align. Some people will be too scared regardless because they're afraid of law (and don't wanna work fulltime on ASI risk for whatever stupid reason), but some might help. (I already have real world examples of this, cant share for privacy reasons.) text_english/personal/main/posts_written_to_friends_versus_to_myself.md000644 000765 000024 00000001023 15177753505 030140 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-02 # Posts written to friends versus to myself Disclaimer - Thinking aloud. May not endorse this after lot of thought. Main - Holy shit I just realised the problem with my personal website. There are some posts which are addressed to friends and potential friends. And there are some posts which are literally my own thinking addressed to myself. - It's the onion model thing. - I need to maintain a clearer separation between both on my website. Like, I literally need two different personal websites. - Will fix. text_english/personal/main/the_gates_to_hades_are_the_terrace_of_my_building_part_two.md000644 000765 000024 00000002503 15212623337 033273 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-12 # The Gates to Hades are the terrace of my building - part 2 Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - speaking aloud, may not endorse on reflection Main - So much for having fun. - Just came back from visiting my terrace and holy mother of god I feel actually mildly sick. - I don't know, it just freezes you in place. Bodies upon bodies upon bodies in every direction, above there's an illumanted sky with grey clouds, and just graveyards upon graveyards in every direction. - What the actual fuck, man? What the actual fuck. - Mass murdering everyone responsible for this would be a **kindness** relative to the hell these people deserve. What the actual fuck. - I'm not the type of person to dissociate but I did feel atleast mildly dissociated from my own body. I don't know, I felt just thrown into this entirely other place. There is this bar (daaru ka theka) near Dimapur on Assam-Nagaland border I was once driven to, I have positive memories associated with it, won't be writing those publicly. It was just immediate flashback to that place. - Cities are all quite similar, but each town is a little unique. I was (and still am) upset that so many towns will be destroyed. Main 2 - My name is Samuel and I am a terrorist. When I'm through with you, you will wish I had never been born at all. text_english/personal/main/X_I_tried_dual_N_back_N_2_Y_it_can_fill_up_your_working_memory.md000644 000765 000024 00000002224 15236043317 033634 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-09 # X: I tried dual N-back (N=2). Y: It can fill up your working memory Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - See also: [dual N back demo online with no ads](https://dual-n-back.io) Main - Looking back at my notes from some months, I seemed to have had a "two-hour fog" hypothesis re: ASI risk. I think I generally don't have as much fog nowadays. But in any case, dual 2-back seems like a pure concentrated version of the thing that can fill up your working memory, where if you spend even half a second thinking about something else, you will lose points. - I also seemed to have notes around persuasion via youtube and all youtubers recommend you use 5th grader or even 3rd grader level english. I hypothesised that N-back tests may be useful for persuasion, to actually track what is in the viewer's working memory as they keep watching the video. - I actually got around to trying it, and damn, it is interesting. - I managed to get 100% twice in the first 10 attempts. I seem to either get 100 / near-100, or get a terrible score. Basically the slightest distraction throws me off completely, and I get a really bad score. text_english/personal/main/therapy_effectiveness_personal.md000644 000765 000024 00000014476 15177753505 025620 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2025-05-05 # Therapy effectiveness (Personal) Disclaimer - **Quick note** - I have confirmed with everyone who this document is talking about, that they're okay with this document being published. - I don't have background in psychology, or a huge amount of experience as a client. I have a medium amount of experience (>50 sessions) as a client. - I talk a lot about anecdotal personal experiences here, rather than average result of all people. Don't generalise my anecdotes too far. Research - Empirical data shows therapy is helpful for some people and not for others. I could not find clear empirical data to predict in advance whether you're in a category of people who is likely to have higher or lower success rate. - I have not read many papers on it. I usually end up reading reviews of the papers by people like Scott Alexander and others. Personal anecdotes - I have had mildly positive but not greatly positive experiences with therapy so far. - Not keen on sharing a lot more details on a public forum. If you want complete information on this you're better off befriending me and asking in-person. - A common problem I run into, from my perspective atleast, is differences in core values and beliefs. - Therapists seem to be taught to be maximally non-judgemental and accepting all values and beliefs. Even if they don't agree with your worldview, they are supposed to imagine for a moment they had your worldview and try figuring out a solution with that assumption in mind. - I think I have had multiple therapists who, from my perspective, lacked meta-honesty when doing this with me. Example of a meta-honest comment: "I might disagree with some of your opinions but I refuse to talk about the disagreement because I don't think that's best for the type of relationship I'm trying to build with you. As per my worldview it may or may not be good for you to continue down your current path. But I'm going to ignore all that and just focus on what's good for you assuming your worldview" - I think I distrusted multiple therapists because this was not explicitly discussed. I would force them to cough up information about their values and beliefs, without realising they've been trained to not share that information with me. - I think human brains have a lot of specialised wiring to identify if someone is on your side or not. If someone diplomatically tries to look like they're on my side but actually they're not, that can make them seem less trustworthy to me compared to if they honestly admit they're not on my side. - In theory, a therapist can choose to support you on your current path even if they don't personally like that path, because that's what you're paying them to do. - In practice, I think payment alone is not a good enough incentive. A therapist (or any human for that matter) is likely to do a better job helping you out if they actually want you to succeed on your current path for reasons besides just money. - In my personal case, I think this also becomes difficult as I'm pursuing explicitly political goals that can damage the lives of other people for a greater good. It's easier to help someone pursue goals you don't believe in, if those goals are just personal goals (like find a partner of xyz type or make lots of money) than if those goals are political goals (like organise protests in order to destroy someone else's business). - I think most therapists worldwide believe in something similar to deontological moral system (don't do harm ever, greater good never justifies harm) and I don't believe in it. This disagreement also, I think, plays a role in the types of problems I have run into during therapy. - I also think therapists' secrecy norms are generally not as strong as required for someone who actually has their career or life on the line for violating secrecy. - Many therapists lack a background in criminal investigations and lack understanding of what stronger guarantees of secrecy actually look like. - Examples: lawyers, spies, criminals or potential criminals, foreign diplomats, major politicians, billionaires, allies/advisors of major politicians or billionaires, etc - This probably doesn't matter for therapy efficacy in most cases, as most people's lives aren't interesting enough for an adversary to put a lot of effort into getting their secrets. - It definitely matters for a small set of cases where the client takes secrecy more seriously than the therapist. Sometimes the client is right in needing stronger guarantees on secrecy and sometimes the client overestimates their true need for these guarantees. But in any case, most therapists can't provide them. Speculation - The main reasons a therapist can give you good advice: - less bias compared to you - they are not personally afflicted by the same problems you are, which can let them be less biased around it. This fails if your problems are in fact global problems shared by them. Also it's possible an intelligent friend can play this role. - they hve more information than you - they've seen other people's secrets and they understand the world better as a result. - I believe in this, if a therapist has seen lots of people with problems similar to you, they likely have some understanding of the common generators to those problems. - they have been trained on a standard set of procedures that have weak positive empirical evidence - I'm confident this works for a subset of people. If you don't have one of the standard problems, success rate of therapy varies a lot more I think. - they have spent a lot of time thinking about psychological problems, unlike you. - IMO median therapist does not do enough world-historically-original thinking that they'll be likely to solve your problems this way. There are likely outlier therapists who are good at thinking originally and creatively to solve your problems. - Therapists are often good at emotional support. - I'm usually biased towards requiring advice more than support, but emotional support is valuable to a large number of people. Most people fundamentally want to be heard, understood and accepted. - Beyond that though, client needs practical advice to build life outside of therapy not just support. - I tend to measure effectiveness based on good advice rather than based on good support. This is a personal bias of mine. PaxHeader/religion_is_the_ultimate_panopticon_X_made_lots_of_notes_Y_self_censored_some_religion_000644 000765 000024 00000000252 15245343137 042546 xustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main140 path=text_english/personal/main/religion_is_the_ultimate_panopticon_X_made_lots_of_notes_Y_self_censored_some_religion_related_notes.md 30 mtime=1788200543.305291253 religion_is_the_ultimate_panopticon_X_made_lots_of_notes_Y_self_censored_some_religion_related_not000644 000765 000024 00000004454 15245343137 043026 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal/main2026-08-31 # Religion is the ultimate panopticon. X: Made lots of notes. Y: Self-censored some religion-related notes Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Religion is the ultimate panopticon. - If I look at all the notes I have self-censored, two broad categories stand out: - Notes that involve privacy of people around me - Notes that are critical of Indian govt or various religions - Given this, it should be completely unsurprising that merging both is useful for those in power. - Many religious people are distributed enforcers of violence. Violence breeds suppression not just of speech but of thought itself. - Famous quote: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - I wil go further. "To learn who rules over you, figure out the thoughts you don't allow yourself to think." - What are the thoughts you are suppressing yourself from thinking, so much that even parts of yourself are at war with yourself stopping you from thinking them? Parts of you that are internalised voices of people you've met, deep internalised evolutionary fears of their disapproval, your lack of safety if their disapproval means violence not just being abandoned by the tribe. - Making notes this public is just painfully reminding me of the notes that are **not** public. It's like a scab in a wound. This Paul Graham [[1]](https://paulgraham.com/useful.html) quote explains it well: > When I proofread an essay, there are usually passages that stick out in an annoying way, sometimes because they're clumsily written, and sometimes because I'm not sure they're true. The annoyance starts out unconscious, but after the tenth reading or so I'm saying "Ugh, that part" each time I hit it. They become like briars that catch your sleeve as you walk past. - Or this quote [[2]](https://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html) > Religions are collections of cherished but mistaken principles. So anything that can be described either literally or metaphorically as a religion will have valuable unexplored ideas in its shadow. Copernicus and Darwin both made discoveries of this type. > What are people in your field religious about, in the sense of being too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think? What becomes possible if you discard it? text_english/personal/main/a_fundamental_problem_of_internet_driven_geopolitics.md000644 000765 000024 00000006301 15177753505 032176 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-19 # A fundamental problem of internet-driven geopolitics Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - Just started skimming the federalist papers. Special thanks to the writers for reminding me how interconnected domestic politics and geopolitics are. - One of the most fundamental problems of internet-driven geopolitics is the following: - Atheists in US are coming to the realisation that they share more in common with atheists in Russia or China or India, than they share in common with Christians in US. The most fundamental thing they share in common is a shared belief in how to organise relationships (i.e. views on sex/family/parenting/community/etc) - Similarly, christians in the US are coming to the realisation that they share more in common with christians in Russia or India or wherever, than they share in common with atheists in India. - This is why it makes sense for American leftists to seek support of the Russian govt, or for Indian atheists to start youtube channels while sitting in Europe. Similarly it makes sense for Indian Hindus to ally with Israeli jews, and so on. - Honestly, reading federalist papers is seriously making me question - should I just ask for a full blown world government? Instead of pursuing all my current leaking plans. A world government would be more ambitious. - There will soon be so much internal chaos in domestic politics of various countries, that countries could actually benefit from merging with each other IMO. Maintaining a national identity makes sense if its people share something in common. But if people share nothing in common, and share more in common with people of the other country, then there is genuinely not much loss of national identity of either country, when both countries merge. - My solution is that each political camp (or atleast, my anti-ASI political camp) should set up bases across all geopolitical spheres. However, this is still a less ambitious plan than literally building a world govt. Hypothesis - Back when the US geopolitical sphere was decided, there was a lot less intermixing of people across countries. It was far easier for elites to travel, but the rest didn't. Now a lot more people to travel for economic reasons, also a much smaller set of people travel for fun/curiosity/etc. Hypothesis - If I am right, then most of the current authoritarian nuclear powers should become democracies soon? Like, small number of youbers living outside their geopolitical spheres should literally be able to topple govts? Why is this taking so long? Economics - The primary reason to not merge would just be the endless economic gerrymandering that always happens - why leaders of govts of US geopolitical sphere don't want to help leaders of Indian govt, why leaders of US govt don't want to help leaders of European govts, why leaders of Californian govt don't want to help the leaders of govts of other US states, why leaders of Big Tech companies don't want to help leaders of California govt, why Sam Altman doesn't even want to help (leaders of) Big Tech companies. Unfortunately an uncontrolled race is likely to literally crown Altman as world dictator (if the loss of control outcome doesn't happen). text_english/personal/main/X_gone_back_to_a_new_authentic_hinge_profile.md000644 000765 000024 00000001402 15253413412 030302 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-19 # X: Gone back to a new authentic hinge profile Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - (Consent note - I more-or-less have my friend's permission to make such notes publicly.) - My current profile (made with a friend's help) feels so inauthentic I am too demotivated to even use it. Not motivated in the slightest. I actually got a match already (hence proving it is maybe a more successful profile), but I am like, fuck this, not doing this. - It does not mention ASI risk or poly. It mentions a bunch of hobby and travel stuff I don't care about anymore. - I have gone back to using yet another authentic profile. - Time to again spend time using this and then cry about the fact that I am not getting matches. Let's go. personal/main/liked_an_interaction_with_a_girl_on_the_plane_also_some_notes_on_safety.md000644 000765 000024 00000003011 15223426147 035767 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english2026-07-08 # Liked an interaction with a girl on the plane. Also some notes on safety Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Liked an interaction with a girl on the plane. - [Rest of notes about this interaction are private.] - Small interactions like this seem to have surprisingly large effects on my overall mood. Main 2 - Also reminds me of this girl who was sleeping in the metro few days back. She looked so peaceful, a bit attractive even. Then she woke up and it was like 24x7 transformation, she suddenly looked quite stressed and bored and just not attractive to me anymore at all. - I wonder if I sometimes come across the same way. Peaceful while asleep but not so much while awake. Practical takeaway - Maybe a practical takeaway from both of these interactions is something like - when I interact with women (esp. women I might have some interest in), maybe I should consider running a mind sim of "imagine you were actually together with this person and you actually felt safe, how would you interact then?" And strongly prefer running this mind sim based on past interactions (for instance in past relationship) where I have felt safe, as opposed to a projection. - In many interactions I very quickly default to assuming that people around me are threats to the things I care about, at a more subconscious level. I suspect this makes me less attractive. More finegrained ability to switch between both modes (Samuel, the lover, the peaceful person; and Samuel, the warrior) seems useful. text_english/personal/main/experiment_with_cellphone_triangulation.md000644 000765 000024 00000000425 15254214057 027507 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-21 # Experiment with cellphone signal triangulation Disclaimer - personal Main - If I had infinite time, I would look more into how amateurs (like me) can triangulate cellphone signals, without necessarily having authorisation of the sender, receiver or carrier. text_english/personal/main/do_I_need_an_ingroup_to_feel_safe.md000644 000765 000024 00000003737 15212226443 026071 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-10 # Do I need an ingroup to feel safe? Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I have openly threatened the most powerful people in human history and made an atleast somewhat credible commitment to back up my threat with action. It is pretty normal to feel unsafe in such an environment. - I do feel safe enough, but quite far from 100% safe. Like, I am sure my cortisol level is higher on a day-to-day basis, muscles are tighter, when I meet people I am constantly scanning which bucket to put them into (threat versus not threat, type-1 versus type-2 versus type-3 versus unsure), and so on. - A story I have in my head is that I would feel more safe once I had people to work with, where we all commit to actually protect each other to some degree. Perfect commitments are not possible (hackers can turn each other in to reduce prison time) but even imperfect commitments could help. - See also: Perry Fellwock's experiences with paranoia when he ran his journalist outlet. This is not a new experience lol. - Okay but why I do feel I **need** this? Just feel unsafe and work anyways lol, just like I am doing right now. What stops you? - Worst case is what, I end up in prison. The world doesn't end. (Well actually no, the worst case is quite literally that the world ends. Motherfucker.) - Okay fine I'll be in prison, so what? I will have less sunlight and shit nutrition and be surrounded with low IQ low impulse-control idiots, and I may have to learn to fight, and so on. Maybe I get beaten up. Not the end of the world. - I am capable of working while feeling unsafe, but this does not seem ideal, yes. Finding people to work with will help. P.S. Focussing on your lack of safety can actually make you feel more unsafe. Focus on the actual work you wanna do. Try to solve your lack of safety (by meeting relevant people), sure, but don't obsess over it, there are no good returns to that process. You already have a lot of previous experience with this. text_english/personal/main/morse_tree.md000644 000765 000024 00000005021 15250243666 021450 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-09 # Morse tree Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Practising for ham radio ASOC exam - My guess is that the below method is an easier way to memorise it. Let's see what works. Generated by gpt-6, may contain hallucins ``` ROOT +-- dot -> E (.) | +-- dot -> I (..) | | +-- dot -> S (...) | | | +-- dot -> H (....) | | | | +-- dot -> 5 (.....) | | | | \-- dash -> 4 (....-) | | | \-- dash -> V (...-) | | | \-- dash -> 3 (...--) | | \-- dash -> U (..-) | | +-- dot -> F (..-.) | | \-- dash -> EMPTY (..--) | | +-- dot -> EMPTY (..--.) | | | \-- dot -> ? (..--..) | | \-- dash -> 2 (..---) | \-- dash -> A (.-) | +-- dot -> R (.-.) | | +-- dot -> L (.-..) | | \-- dash -> EMPTY (.-.-) | | \-- dot -> EMPTY (.-.-.) | | \-- dash -> FULL STOP [.] (.-.-.-) | \-- dash -> W (.--) | +-- dot -> P (.--.) | \-- dash -> J (.---) | \-- dash -> 1 (.----) \-- dash -> T (-) +-- dot -> N (-.) | +-- dot -> D (-..) | | +-- dot -> B (-...) | | | +-- dot -> 6 (-....) | | | | \-- dash -> HYPHEN [-] (-....-) | | | \-- dash -> BT / EQUALS [=] (-...-) | | \-- dash -> X (-..-) | \-- dash -> K (-.-) | +-- dot -> C (-.-.) | | \-- dash -> EMPTY (-.-.-) | | \-- dot -> SEMICOLON [;] (-.-.-.) | \-- dash -> Y (-.--) \-- dash -> M (--) +-- dot -> G (--.) | +-- dot -> Z (--..) | | +-- dot -> 7 (--...) | | \-- dash -> EMPTY (--..-) | | \-- dash -> COMMA [,] (--..--) | \-- dash -> Q (--.-) \-- dash -> O (---) +-- dot -> EMPTY (---.) | \-- dot -> 8 (---..) \-- dash -> EMPTY (----) +-- dot -> 9 (----.) \-- dash -> 0 (-----) ``` Or in simpler terms: ``` Morse tree - E - I family - SHV UF (5432?) - A family - RL WPJ (.1) - T - N family - DBX KCY (6-=;) - M family - GZQ O (7,890) ``` Then practice EIATNM, practice each family separately, then practice multiple families together. Practise settings - 8 wpm, farnsworth zero, 700 Hz - audio generation: [Link to app](https://cduck.github.io/morse/web/play.html) - sequence generation: `LC_ALL=C tr -dc 'EIATNM' Is anyone ever going to tell the truth about what's happening here? - (from Oppenheimer movie) Update - Maybe this is also why I don't want to make art or music for mass audience either? I don't want to associate myself with the hedonism common in leftist protest movements. See the counterculture of the 1960s (successor the anti-nuclear protests in 50s) or their famous artists, or well, a lot of the examples in Srdja Popovick's book. I am aware this kind of shit is what reaches the masses, but I don't want to reach masses like this. - Whenever I propose a plan to others, I need to have a) theory of change with world models and base rates and frontier knowledge to break the base rate and so on, b) inspiring stuff like this that is the actual motivation why you are doing the thing (which is not the same as the theory of change) text_english/personal/main/billie_eilish_will_die.md000644 000765 000024 00000000407 15230705220 023737 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-07-24 # Billie Eilish will die Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Listening to her music - Mildly sad she will die too - I know literally nothing about her personal life, and am not that curious about it either. Even so text_english/personal/main/if_I_was_making_art_to_doompill_people_here_is_how_I_would_do_it.md000644 000765 000024 00000006316 15177753505 034416 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-20 # If I was making art to doompill people, here is how I would do it Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Datapoint - Grimes youtube has more subs than any actual anti-ASI youtube channel - I think the lyrics and storytelling are the most important. For actual music and arrangement I would just borrow whatever is popular on Suno. - The current incentive gradient is to make romantic music for nightclub/concert venues, or make depressed music for teenagers or similar. Hence I would deliberately not make romantic or depressed music, but write lyrics on some other important topic. - I could maybe take AI's help with matching lyrics to syllable timings, but I would not actually ask AI to write lyrics on its own. I have to write them based on what speaks to me. - I would not make AI videos. 2D videos anyway suck compared to real life because no depth perception, also the facial expression problem remains unsolved. - Maybe I should try this stuff just for a week to see? 2026-03-21 Update - Experiment - I spent a day trying to write rap lyrics using AI. Did not make a lot of progress. - Many songs I like, especially rap songs, have specific lines where the vocals too behave like an instrument. In rap terms, this is called "flow". Example: [ERB Jack the Ripper v Hannibal Lector 1:50-2:11](https://youtu.be/KfkR5o_bcSg?t=108&si=22OzhwBsbZvFp7lr) - Output: [Suno 1](https://suno.com/s/gco4OQg7Lu114cnq), [Suno 2](https://suno.com/s/nMCVKep6Swf2KNNo) - (Credits to a friend for all this) - Not wasting more time on this because it's not my forte or interest. - Theory - Rap lyrics must match following constraints at once: 1. coherent english sentence that talk about a meaningful concept you've specified 2. should show high phonetic similarity with previous line of lyrics. especially vowel not consonant sounds. especially ending of sentence 3. should flow well with the other musical instruments - Problem is search trees for 1 and 2 are both exponential. If you use a phonetic dictionary and open search tree for 2, it is exponential. If you use an LLM and open search tree for 1, it is also exponential. You need intersection of both search trees. - Another problem is I don't understand music theory well enough to do constraint 3, let alone implement it into an algo - Rhymezone is poor man's version of 2, a python script would do better. - You can ask gpt-5.4 with reasoning: high to try to find intersection of both trees, it doesn't completely suck, but also it is not perfect. - Dumb idea: Start with input sentence. Then ask LLM for logits of next word. Give some additional weight to those logits whose words are phonetically matching, to get weighted logits. Then take top-n weighted logits. Then ask LLM for logits of next word. Give additional weight to those logits whose words are phonetically matching, to get weighted logits. Then take top-n_2 weighted logits. And repeat. I haven't implemented this yet so I don't know how well it performs - Prediction - I do expect we will get Eminem-level AI-generated raps by end of 2026. - I will not be surprised if “stack more layers” solves this too, but until then, some guesses on how to solve by manually writing an algo main/X_you_sent_many_prompts_Y_last_5_matches_did_not_appreciate_specific_non_sexual_compliment.md000644 000765 000024 00000001566 15231322722 041660 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 text_english/personal2026-07-26 X: You sent many prompts. Y: Last 5 matches did not appreciate "specific non-sexual compliment" Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I used to think the meta for sending prompts was to send compliments, make them specific in nature, and make them non-sexual in nature. For example, appreciate how happy or relaxed someone is, or appreciate a location they've chosen for taking photos, or appreciate some choice about their fashion sense, or appreciate that they've put thought into some hobby or prompt. - Apparently I am wrong? - If I look at last 5 prompts that actually worked, zero out of 5 are like this. P.S. - Yay that I am finally getting matches lol, so I can atleast A-B test stuff like this. Current profile seems be not terrible anymore, plus it is actually somewhat authentic. I am out of the basement of the success curve. text_english/personal/main/safe_tech_progress_is_more_timeless_than_asi_risk.md000644 000765 000024 00000004013 15206643011 031456 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-05-31 ## Update - See also: ["Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept"](./actually_agree_versus_agree_to_disagree_yet_accept_versus_do_not_accept.md) - this post is attempting to understand type-1 better - my guess is even "safe tech progress" is too abstract, and the details matter further. Two people who both are willing to die for "safe tech progress", could still end up type-1 or type-2 (or worse, even type-3) depending on the specific decisions they are making, and these could go through multiple transitions. 2026-05-30 # "Safe tech progress" is more timeless than ASI risk Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Imagine I was in year 1980 and wanted to marry someone. It would not have made much sense to use "cares about ASI risk" as the criteria, because back then there was no way to tell whether ASI was 20 years away or 50 or 300. However it would have made sense to use "cares about safe tech progress" as a criteria. Humans already had nukes so the idea of a single technology blowing up civilisation was understood back then itself. - Imagine further back, let's say it was 1850. That long ago even setting "atheist" as a criteria for who to marry would have been a radical thing, although I'm strongly guessing some people did it. I'm not actually not very sure what culture looked like in that particular time period. This is basically after the first industrial revolution but before the second one. But even then, there were people thinking about future technologies. See HG Wells or HP Lovecraft for example, they were both in this approx time period. - I'm therefore more comfortable using "safe tech progress" as a criteria to filter people, than using "ASI risk" as a criteria to filter people. - Also see my earlier note, interfaith marriages are totally still possible (between someone who worships "safe tech progress" and someone who does not), the important part is to not lie to yourself about the fact you are in an interfaith marriage. text_english/personal/main/my_childhood.md000644 000765 000024 00000000212 15177753505 021751 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-22 # My childhood My childhood was Below Average. To protect privacy of family members, I mostly avoid talking about it online. text_english/personal/main/Im_happy_today_was_productive.md000644 000765 000024 00000000722 15234113264 025363 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-03 # I'm happy today was productive Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - I finally understood why ethereum smart contracts cannot verify content signed via SSL/TLS. - I am finally able to read programs written in raw ethereum opcodes and understand what is going on, atleast at a high-level. - Climbing non-linear difficulty curves is frustrating at first and then fun. Important to not get demotivated in the first step. text_english/personal/main/I_am_sad_I_cant_publish_my_travel_notes.md000644 000765 000024 00000001161 15177753505 027304 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-17 # I am sad I can't publish my travel notes Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - I just went through my travel notes from 2024. I want to publish them but it's going to be so much work. Ugh. - I have to remove identifying details of specific people I met. - I have to remove atleast some stuff related to sex (because this topic is sensitive in India). - I have to be precise which stuff is anecdotes and which stuff is generalisations, just to avoid insulting entire communities/countries based on anecdotal experiences. - Maybe I should put the effort and publish something anyway? Not today though. text_english/personal/main/core_of_my_morality_around_asi_risk_is_very_simple.md000644 000765 000024 00000005740 15177753505 031730 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-03-28 # The core of my morality around ASI risk is very simple Disclaimer - **Quick Note** - **Contains politically sensitive info** Main - The core of my morality is very simple. - **If one of my friends of many years eventually became a billionaire building ASI and risking human extinction, and they had deranged beliefs that this would get us a utopia, and slitting their throat with a razor was the only way to save my life, then ofcourse I kill my (ex-)friend and save my life.** - (In practice I don't think any single asassination is likely to solve ASI risk. In practice, I also don't think xrisk is certain, we are facing more like a russian roulette of atleast 10% xrisk by 2030, atleast another 5% more xrisk by 2035, and all this is a martingale process where the numbers go up and down with every passing year. All this makes reality more complicated than this thought experiment.) - If one of my friends of many years eventually became a billionaire building ASI, and they had deranged beliefs that this would get us a utopia, then ofcourse I stop having a close friendship with them, and ofcourse I try to get them ostracised from any close friend group (I don't do group interactions much in general, but let's say I did). - If one of my friends of many years went to work at an AI company building ASI, and they bought the AI company koolaid, I obviously stop trusting their judgement on basically everything to do with ASI and also on 10 other topics. - I can look my friends in the eye and tell them these basic facts. It's not some big secret. - I have long track record over many years of considering violence as a way to solve problems. This is in practice, not just in theory. - For privacy reasons, not listing examples here. - I am not that squeamish watching actual rape or murder videos. - So far, I have been able to solve or atleast placate all the major problems in my life without actual violence. I definitely seem to impliticly operate on some sort of harm minimisation principle, if I look at my past actions. It is just that harm minimisation when solving a problem as big as ASI risk still means harming atleast some people. - For anyone else reading this: I am not saying your friends should have the same moral weight as strangers. I am saying that if you are willing to kill even your friends over this, then ofcourse you'd be willing to do that to people you barely know. - Everything else is complexity around my identity (for instance my identity as a pro-democracy pro-capitalist), or parts of people I like (I like high openness-to-experience technical people), or complexity around social consequences (my reputation, long-term consequences, ingroup coordination and trust, coordination against shared outgroup, what behaviour I will inspire of others) or complexity around managing day-to-day emotions (should I be activated or numb or curious? its a marathon not a sprint). All this complexity shouldn't blind me to the fact that the core is very simple. text_english/personal/main/spend_less_time_on_nitter.md000644 000765 000024 00000001225 15177753505 024552 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-04-02 # Spend less time on Nitter Main - Reading my old blog from 2018 made me happy. I used to be happier then haha. Not saying Samuel!2018 didn't have issues, but still, I am currently even more miserable than that person. Worth noticing. - Note to self - Spend less time on Nitter. I browse nitter and keep my twitter account locked for mental health reasons. But even browsing nitter is making me feel worse, so I should consider doing less of that. - If I check nitter once a month, that's enough for me to get all the updates on ASI risk I need. - I need to find other activities for night time instead of parasocially following people online. text_english/personal/main/I_want_moral_values_that_I_like_not_values_that_my_friends_like.md000644 000765 000024 00000002145 15177753505 034306 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-10 # I want moral values that I like, not values that my friends like Disclaimer - **Quick Note** Main - Atleast some of my unhappiness seems directly downstream of my own confusion regarding morality of cyberattacks. Therefore I probably will have to explore it further. - By far the biggest mistake I can make, when trying to figure this out, is to take my irl friends' opinions on morality, or their judgements of me, too seriously. - This is not just an abstract claim. I can make a list of atleast ten different moral intuitions I've heard from people around me that make no sense to me. I'm just not making this list here, to protect their privacy. - Okay maybe I do need to continue exploring this, including getting more of their inputs, and making an actual list, but keeping all of this entirely in private. - I do still need to figure out values that I actually like or atleast tolerate, in relation to this project, not in some abstract sense. I am definitely not going to be able to last 5 years disliking myself as a person. - I need to achieve both of these objectives at the same time. text_english/personal/main/I_need_clear_risk_optins_for_people_around_me.md000644 000765 000024 00000011317 15212224050 030511 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-06-10 # I need clear risk opt-ins, for people around me Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself - Flagging this because it has repeatedly come up in multiple contexts. This is not a note about any specific person. - Mind sims - I do have mind sims of specific people in mind though, so this is not pure theory detached from reality. Main - I need a clearer process for other people to opt in or opt out to the risk of interacting with me. I need a process for offline and a process for online. Also they're interconnected because you often meet someone first in one context and transition to the other. - Issue I notice - Multiple times it has happened that when people opt-out of the risk, I am unclear whether it is because they don't want the risk, or because they actually disagree with the plan. - This is a big problem because I need to know whether they're type-1 (agree, but wanna stay private) or type-2 (disagree but accept) or type-3 (do not accept). - Why can't I leave this question unanswered? Why do I **need** to know? - One simple answer is just mental resources. I have limited mental bandwidth to devote to navigating social reality, I also have object-level work to do. I wish people would just give me their goddamn answer and get it over with. Then I can go do other important stuff. - Another answer is yes, this is useful information. If lot of people disagree with me, maybe I want to understand the disagreement? But ofcourse, such people might also decline to have such a conversation with me. - How to solve this? - Easy answer - just go cold DM a bunch of people and ask if they're type-1 or type-2 or type-3 lol. - Deeper issue 1 - Some people might want a guarantee their answer stays private. But like, I cannot actually offer that guarantee. I can be like sure, I am not immediately posting your answer online. But also, if I am investigated, ofcourse the answer comes out. If I get hacked, the answer could come out. If I am threatened, the answer could come out. Or I might just have some mental health issue one day as a result of which I myself end up revealing the answer. I cannot actually promise a high degree of privacy to a lot of people. - See also: [Habryka on why keeping secrets is costly](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FM7tWezTknbcTinu9/two-can-keep-a-secret-if-one-is-dead-so-please-share) - Deeper issue 2 - Some people might themselves not know what their answer is. - Most people haven't thought through topics like this, and even if you ask, some of them will just give a surface-level answer they haven't thought through. And if you're like, "no you should actually think this through, this is important", they will still be like, no, lol - Some people might want to think it through properly but want this thinking to be private. And again, see above, if they discuss their thinking with me, I again can't promise a lot of privacy to them. - Answer to deeper issues - I don't know, I think being even more explicit about stuff is the only way. And if they still need to think about it, maybe the actually correct move on their part is to distance from me, think it through, and then later decide if they wanna talk to me again or not. ### Conclusion - I need to have more empathy for the fact that multiple people around me (online and in-person) cannot actually honestly communicate with me whether their answer is "agree, but wanna stay private" or "disagree but accept" or "do not accept" or "don't know, wanna think, wanna stay private" or "don't know, don't wanna think, wanna stay private." - I am actually putting them in a difficult spot. I do still think putting them in this spot is the least worst option. But I should be aware that this is what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it. - Especially after you've had a first conversation with people that is non-work-related, bring up the topic of what you're actually working on, bring up how much privacy you can actually realistically offer, ask them what they think and **don't press them for an immediate answer** if they don't wanna immediately offer one. The last part is important. --- - Another possible solution - Maybe I should try to get more feedback from strangers in-person? This is a large time investment but like, in-person is way better than online, and meeting strangers is less risky to said stranger, than sustained repeated interaction. I don't know, this doesn't sound like an ideal solution but it can work sometimes. - prolific.com surveys seem higher ROI on my time tbh. Maybe I should do those too. - Motherfucker you wanted to do the surveys months ago, why haven't you done them yet? Note to self - do the surveys by the end of the month (2026-06-30) ideally. text_english/personal/main/why_do_humans_have_sex_in_private.md000644 000765 000024 00000004354 15177753505 026270 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-02-04 # Why do humans have sex in private? Disclaimer - Thinking aloud. Might not endorse after a lot of thought Main - I am fascinated by how neutral the tone of discussion is in this post: [Why do humans have sex in private?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/1567/why-do-humans-have-sex-in-private) - I am inclined to agree with the hypothesis that having sex makes you feel vulnerable, and if you do it in public you are exposed to other people who could be a threat. Not just actual physical threat, and not just threat of a sexual competitor (someone who will try to steal your partner), but someone who might use emotions you express during sex and the information revealed, for their ends instead of yours. - Why do humans seem to naturally do this sort of onion model thing? Like, I will protect myself from my partner. My partner and I will protect each other from our friend group. Our friend group will protect ourselves from extended network. Our extended network / town / community / whatever, will protect all of us from strangers and enemy groups. - Atomisation of society definitely has removed some of the onion layers for some people. (Myself included lol, but maybe that'll change.) Now it's just you, then you and your partner, then maaaybe some friends, and then there's a nation state you don't relate to and may as well be your enemy. - I think I should approach the question with more curiosity instead of trying to ham-fisted nudge myself in the direction of "zero privacy world is fine actually". I don't know, I feel some pressure to have to defend that "zero privacy world is fine" because I've stated that in public to some people. - I should be willing to admit I'm wrong or that I don't know. - I think I still weakly lean towards "zero privacy world is fine actually" but don't have a strong opinion. And I should try to investigate this question with more curiosity and less social defensiveness. - Actual curiosity feels good actually. Being in the zero sum "kill or be killed" mindset might be worse for truth-seeking. The "kill or be killed" mindset is good for motivation, and it's good for actually summoning the courage required to kill your enemies. I don't know. I have to experiment with both mindsets and see. text_english/personal/main/I_love_this_thread_on_hn_called_anger_anxiety_agency.md000644 000765 000024 00000000315 15243325562 032026 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-25 # I love this thread on HN called "anger, anxiety, agency" Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - [link to source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49424082) text_english/personal/main/languages_I_know.md000644 000765 000024 00000002417 15236367712 022571 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-08-10 # Languages I know Disclaimer - personal Main - I have native-level fluency in English and Hindi. I am most comfortable in English. I almost entirely think in English, and have to mentally translate when speaking in Hindi. - I have intro-level listening (but not speaking) skills in Tamil. I learned it from my family. I can recognise a few hundred words I think. I could probably improve my skills rapidly if I actually went and lived in Tamil Nadu for instance. However, I have no immediate motivation to do so. - I learned French in school for many years but I know approximately zero French because CBSE curriculum makes the blunder of teaching reading/writing, but not listening/speaking. Also they didn't teach that much vocabulary. - I tried self-learning Mandarin for a few months (one hour a day of listening to voiceovers). I now have bare minimum listening skills. I can recognise a hundred words I think. I thought learning mandarin would be useful because of ASI risk but I found it way too much of a time investment, so I lost motivation. I would much rather invest an equivalent amount of time building better AI translation tools, the UX is terrible for many of the current tools. See also: [Translation app I once built](https://translate.samuelshadrach.com) text_english/personal/main/X_attended_event_Y_not_for_me_save_your_computation.md000644 000765 000024 00000000271 15246343555 032006 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-09-04 # X: Attended event. Y: Not for me. Save your computation. Disclaimer - personal - target audience - strictly myself Main - Not everything needs a long analysis. Move. text_english/personal/main/date_me_old.md000644 000765 000024 00000043717 15177753505 021564 0ustar00samuelstaff000000 000000 2026-01-15 ## Update **This document is outdated and some info may be incorrect. Go see my newer doc instead.** --- 2025-10-14 ## Update - Here are my **non-negotiable** filters for who to date long-term - I'm straight, want longterm relationship ideally. - (Casual sex and short-term relationships seem to me like time that could be better spent finding something long-term. Exceptions could exist.) - How I invest my time and money are probably decided by my career plans to fix AI risk. - My partner should be understanding why I decided this. I can't devote a lot of my time or money to my partner on a day-to-day basis, although I can ofcourse do it when there is a significant need. - Which city I live in is probably decided by my career plans to fix AI risk. - My ideal destination is probably San Francisco, although I may need to actually live there for some years to be sure. - I'm not in SF right now so, we will have to find a way to cross the bridge when it comes. Maybe we break up, maybe long distance, maybe you shift too. - I have also thought about circumstances like being imprisoned or deported. I am not willing to talk about this in public, however. - Whether to have children and how to raise is an uncertainty I have not resolved yet. I would prefer to resolve this uncertainty before getting into a long-term relationship. - Currently weakly leaning towards having children. - If I have children, I want an atheist partner so we don't have conflict over what values to raise them with. - I currently support a worldwide ban on human genetic engineering for some years. If however, there is no ban and human genetic engg becomes normalised in society, I would want to edit my children to ensure they can outcompete the rest of society. In the limit, this could even mean we raise someone capable enough to take over the world and become world dictator. What our kid chooses to do with this vast capability might be upto them. (Yes I am completely serious about this.) - Whether to be polyamorous or not is an uncertainty I have not resolved yet. I have to resolve this before I get married. - Currently strongly leaning towards being poly. - I would prefer to have access to a poly community that can provide info about failure modes, as base rate of failure for poly couples still seems higher than monogamy to me. - Apart from above criteria I'm basically willing to overlook any issue and work hard to keep the relationship. - Examples of criteria I can overlook: finding my partner only moderately but not extremely attractive physically, physical and mental health issues, difference in socioeconomic class or education, moderate differences in political opinion, different lifestyle or spending habits, large age gap, different hobbies, etc - There are obviously personality traits that need to be compatible. Those are more negotiable. - I have made lists of my personality traits below, although I now think this is the type of thing that is better showcased via video instead of via text. When I prioritise this, I'll spend some time uploading videos of me in a casual (non-work) setting. - (Ultimately only meeting in-person for sometime can guarantee compatbility.) - **I'm aware this document is a mess and I will simplify it one day. For now just use the para above, for my latest crtieria.** Resolving uncertainties mentioned above - Should I have kids or not? - I want to collect more data on this by talking to people online or in-person. Getting anecdotal evidence I can trust is honest is hard because most people hide their family conflicts by default. - The biggest reasons to not have kids for me are lack of time to raise the kids, and lack of ability to prioritise the kids when there are actual tradeoffs in life decisions. My number one priority right now is fixing AI risk, which leaves me with less ability to prioritise my partner or kids. Finding a partner who doesn't expect much time from me sounds more reasonable than (let's say) paying someone else to raise my kid because I lack time to do it myself. - Maybe the actual answer here is that I want kids but a few years down the line, once there is more clarity as to how our civilisation plans to deal with superintelligent AI and human genetic engineering. If there is still no clarity in the world even 5 years later, I don't have clarity on what I would personally do. - Should I be polyamorous or not? - I want to collect more data on this both by meeting polyamorous people in-person and actually being in a poly relationship myself. - I think actually being in a poly relationship is the fastest way to resolve this uncertainty. - Lack of time is a reason I might not bother with maintaining multiple relationships. But I still want the option to have sex with other people, whether or not I actually bother to use it. "Have sex with one person till you die" doesn't sit right with me at a gut level. --- 2025-10-08 Update - I am now increasingly convinced that figuring out alignment of core values in important for a marriage. The biggest reason is to avoid conflicts over what value system to raise children with. (There are also other reasons.) I am aware of multiple personal experiences that went very poorly due to religious differences within family. - This means being atheist is necessary but maybe not sufficient if you want to marry me and possibly have children. - (All this obviously assumes humanity survives that long, and we don't have ASI or mind uploading by then.) --- 2025-08-18 Update - I tried posting my Hinge profile to my insta, along with the referral system thing. My conclusions based on the feedback: - Most people dont actually know me well enough to make good recommendations, and my current hinge profile is not good enough for someone to get to know me enough that they can make good recommendations. - Posting hinge profile outside hinge is low status because it signals by default that hinge failed for you. Having existing dates is like one of the primary signals for whether you're dateable. - It might be worth posting it along with some proof that you did also get significant number of matches on hinge, just not the type you're looking for. - You can choose to just accept the status hit, but it's better if you have clear reasoning for why you're doing it, which I don't. Because of first point above (most people can't make good recommendations with the limited data), the odds of finding a partner this way are not high. - More generally yeah I do still want to try a bunch of tricks on my hinge profile first, before I try other methods. --- 2025-08-11 To do for self - simplify this document, some core ideas are repetitive - use "show not tell", use more photos/videos for each point instead of sentences. Lmao maybe I have just derived from first principles why dating apps use photos and not text. It's possible the idea of a text-only document here is a bad idea. - I seem to lack clarity on whether this document is written to my future self or my future partner, both imply somewhat different documents. # Date me *Referral bonus: If you introduce me to someone I end up partnered with for atleast 5 years, I will pay you $2000. If we're partnered for atleast witg 1 year, I will pay you $500. To claim reward, make sure to keep a copy of our chats and a copy of this webpage as proof, as I might forget otherwise.* [Some videos of me](this_link_is_now_broken) - includes solo videos and with others - includes professional and personal context [Some photos of me](this_link_is_now_broken) - includes solo photos in personal context [Contact me](this_link_is_now_broken) - I value novelty highly so if you're interested in me romantically, you should probably reach out even if the criteria below don't match. - Cost of failure is very low from your point of view, I would appreciate the attempt even if it fails. Disclaimer - I am well aware that most people see analysing relationships to this extent as atypical. - I like doing it for reasons of curiosity. - Also I benefit from doing it. - Atleast half the points here probably benefit from a "show not tell" approach. - Solution: Might upload photos/videos. Content relevant to each point. - It's difficult for me to predict what a hypothetical future partner might value or disvalue. - It varies person-to-person and I obviously can't pre-emptively guess every possible filter someone might test me against. - What you appreciate (or don't appreciate) about me might be very different from what I choose