Keep a list of sites you never heard of!

- [RefSeek](http://www.refseek.com) - Academic Resource Search. More than a billion sources: encyclopedia, monographies, magazines.

- [WorldCat](http://www.worldcat.org) - A search for the contents of 20 thousand worldwide libraries. Find out where lies the nearest rare book you need.

- [Springer Link](https://link.springer.com) - Access to more than 10 million scientific documents: books, articles, research protocols.

- [Bioline](http://www.bioline.org.br) - A library of scientific bioscience journals published in developing countries.

- [RePEc](http://repec.org) - Volunteers from 102 countries have collected almost 4 million publications on economics and related science.

- [Science.gov](http://www.science.gov) - An American state search engine on 2200+ scientific sites. More than 200 million articles are indexed.

- [BASE](http://www.base-search.net) - One of the most powerful searches on academic studies texts. More than 100 million scientific documents, 70% of them are free.

In conversation at: https://github.com/lexicon-community/lexicon/pull/16

> > Speaking of prior art. W3C is working on a standard that probably should be considered in this design.

> > ...

> 

> @tqwhite Yeah, I think they do different things, however.

> 

> The intention here is to allow DIDs (users and organizations) a way to provide small proofs to other records. Those proofs can be part of a larger structure, but they can also be adhoc.

I have since been studying. It is doing much the same thing as this except not of "small proofs". It specifies a data model to support college diplomas and transcripts, professional certifications, job and employment records and pretty much any other fact about a person that anyone would care about having access to in a verifiable way.

Your data model is less comprehensive but has the advantage of being specified in Lexicon and therefore attached to AT Proto. The W3C Verified Credential does not have any connection to the rest of an ecosystem. Further reading has told me that everyone considers it to be part of a W3C Distributed Identity. Unlike this effort, that is not explicit nor is there any standard access protocol suggested. It is written so that any HR or school information system can have a schema that *could* be exported in a verifiable way.

If I were king of the world and had found out about the Attestation Lexicon earlier, I would have really pushed to have it based on the Verifiable Credential. That would support the "small proofs" goal (although it might turn out to be too complex for this use case) and make a huge contribution to the larger effort that motivates the W3C effort. (Obviously it's too late for that and I mean no disrespect.)

Imagine, this though. Today, to get proof of a college degree, one has to contact the institution and, often still, wait for them to dig into their records, print out a diploma and mail it to you. With an ATP Verified Credential, the alternative could be that, upon graduation the institution emails a verified credential that you load into your Personal Data Store. When you apply for a job, you give them the URL of the diploma in your PDS. 

Anyway, sorry to stick my nose in and also to be so longwinded. I am deeply inspired by your work.

I took the CONVERSATION version and went back once more to to GPT. With a prompt that asked it to evaluate for errors and omissions and inappropriate conclusions. I asked it so suggest expansions and additional context. It gave me this intersecting summary.

Modern philosophy after World War II took many turns, with significant shifts and expansions on classical ideas, largely influenced by changes in society, science, and a growing skepticism of grand narratives. Here are some key areas and ideas that would give you a well-rounded view:

1. Existentialism and Phenomenology

• Existentialism focuses on individual existence, freedom, and choice. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir emphasized the role of human agency and the burdens of freedom. This philosophy emphasized themes of authenticity, anxiety, and the “existential” condition.

• Phenomenology evolved with Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger before the war, but postwar philosophers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty continued to explore consciousness and perception. Merleau-Ponty, for instance, emphasized the body’s central role in shaping consciousness.

1. Post-structuralism and Deconstruction

• Post-structuralists like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida questioned objective truths and emphasized the power of language and structures in society. Foucault examined how institutions control knowledge and shape social norms. Derrida’s deconstructionism challenged the idea of stable meanings in texts, arguing that meaning is always fluid and context-dependent.

1. Analytic Philosophy

• In the English-speaking world, analytic philosophy continued to dominate, with a focus on language, logic, and scientific methodology. Figures like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Willard Van Orman Quine questioned the limits of language and meaning. Wittgenstein’s later work, for example, emphasized the social nature of language and the idea of language games.

• Philosophy of mind gained prominence with philosophers like Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett investigating the nature of consciousness, and John Searle developing influential arguments like the Chinese Room argument to critique artificial intelligence.

1. Political Philosophy and Critical Theory

• After WWII, critical theory explored themes of social justice, power, and emancipation, led by thinkers from the Frankfurt School like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They critiqued capitalist societies and warned of mass culture’s impact on individual autonomy.

• Postcolonial philosophy, led by thinkers like Frantz Fanon and Edward Said, examined the impact of colonialism and imperialism, exploring themes of identity, power, and liberation.

1. Pragmatism and Neo-Pragmatism

• Richard Rorty reintroduced pragmatism, emphasizing the idea that knowledge and truth are tools for achieving practical aims, rather than absolute ends. He argued against the idea of objective truth and embraced a more relativistic, flexible approach.

1. Environmental Ethics and Eco-philosophy

• This field emerged as people became more aware of environmental crises. Arne Naess proposed “deep ecology,” emphasizing an intrinsic value in all forms of life. Other thinkers examined the ethical responsibilities humans have toward nature.

1. Feminist Philosophy

• Feminist thinkers like Judith Butler and Iris Marion Young advanced ideas on gender, identity, and social justice. Butler, for instance, argued that gender is performative, challenging traditional notions of gender and sex.

1. Contemporary Metaphysics and Ontology

• Modern metaphysics often revisits classic questions but explores new ones raised by science, especially quantum physics and the philosophy of time. Philosophers like David Lewis introduced ideas like “modal realism,” the theory that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world.

1. Philosophy of Language and Logic

• Following Wittgenstein and Quine, philosophy of language explored how meaning works. Saul Kripke introduced causal theories of reference, impacting views on identity and language.

This overview includes key movements and ideas that capture the diversity and breadth of post-WWII philosophy. Let me know if any specific area interests you for further detail.

Evaluation of the Above

Key Strengths:

• Good coverage of major movements and key figures
• Clear organization by philosophical domains
• Accurate basic characterizations of main ideas

Significant Omissions and Areas for Expansion:

1. Continental-Analytic Divide

• The text should acknowledge the significant methodological and cultural split between Continental and Analytic philosophy, which deeply influenced 20th-century philosophical development
• The bridging work of thinkers like Richard Bernstein who tried to heal this divide deserves mention

1. Philosophy of Science

• Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and its paradigm shift concept is notably absent
• Karl Popper's falsificationism and contributions to scientific methodology aren't mentioned
• The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism deserves coverage

1. Ethics and Meta-ethics

• Major developments in moral philosophy are underrepresented
• John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and its impact on political philosophy
• Peter Singer's work on practical ethics and animal rights
• The revival of virtue ethics by philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre

1. Eastern Influence

• The text is very Western-centric
• Should mention the growing influence of Eastern philosophical traditions on Western thought
• Kyoto School philosophers like Nishitani Keiji deserve mention

1. Philosophy of Technology

• Given technology's importance, this deserves its own section
• Should include Don Ihde's phenomenology of technology
• Discussion of artificial intelligence ethics beyond just Searle

1. Social Epistemology

• The social aspects of knowledge production
• Miranda Fricker's work on epistemic injustice
• Standpoint theory and situated knowledge

Contextual Additions Needed:

1. Historical Context

• The impact of the Cold War on philosophical thinking
• The influence of social movements (civil rights, environmentalism)
• The role of technological advancement in shaping philosophical questions

1. Interdisciplinary Connections

• The relationship between philosophy and cognitive science
• Connections to developments in physics and biology
• Interface with social sciences

1. Contemporary Developments

• New Materialism and Speculative Realism
• Digital philosophy and information theory
• The impact of globalization on philosophical discourse

Issues with Current Framing:

1. The presentation sometimes oversimplifies complex positions (e.g., Rorty's stance on truth)
2. Insufficient attention to critiques and counter-movements within each tradition
3. Could better highlight ongoing debates and unresolved questions
4. More emphasis needed on how these philosophical movements influence current issues

Starting with "I have been interested in classic philosophy from Pythagoras to Aquinas to Descartes to Russel. I do not know anything about formal philosophy after World War 2. Tell me about it", I worked back and forth with ChatGPT and Claude to make this summary. 

Post-World War II Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview

Historical Setting

The post-WWII era saw unprecedented changes: the Cold War, decolonization, technological revolution, social movements, and economic transformation. Philosophy responded to these challenges while wrestling with the moral implications of the Holocaust, nuclear weapons, and totalitarianism. This period was marked by the institutionalization of the analytic-continental divide, the influence of the Cold War on political thought, the emergence of computer science and AI-driven philosophical questions, challenges to Western philosophical hegemony from postcolonial thought, and the rise of environmental and civil rights movements' impact on philosophical discourse.

1. Analytic Philosophy

Historical Context: Emerged from the ruins of logical positivism after its emigration from Vienna to Anglo-American universities during WWII. The GI Bill's expansion of higher education in America and the UK's post-war university investments created institutional homes for this approach.

Continuing the work of early 20th-century philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, analytic philosophy grew in prominence, especially in the English-speaking world. Key developments included:

• The "linguistic turn" led by J.L. Austin and ordinary language philosophy
• W.V.O. Quine's challenge to analytic-synthetic distinction and ontological relativity
• Ruth Barcan Marcus's groundbreaking work in modal logic
• Saul Kripke's contributions to logic, language, and metaphysics, especially naming and necessity
• Peter Strawson's descriptive metaphysics and critique of Russell's theory of descriptions
• Donald Davidson's work on truth conditions and radical interpretation
• The Vienna Circle's influence and subsequent decline of logical positivism

2. Continental Philosophy

Historical Context: Developed in post-war France and Germany amid reconstruction, denazification, and decolonization. May 1968 student protests in Paris and post-war trauma significantly influenced these thinkers. The Berlin Wall became both physical reality and metaphor for the division between philosophical traditions.

Continental thought expanded through several key movements and figures:

• Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism and phenomenology, emphasizing freedom and responsibility
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of perception and embodied consciousness
• The Frankfurt School's critical theory (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas) analyzing mass culture and instrumental reason
• Simone de Beauvoir's foundational feminist philosophy and ethics of ambiguity
• Emmanuel Levinas's ethics of alterity and phenomenology of the Other
• Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics and fusion of horizons
• Post-structuralism through Michel Foucault's analysis of power and knowledge
• Jacques Derrida's deconstruction and critique of Western metaphysics
• Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's collaborative work on capitalism, desire, and multiplicity

3. Pragmatism and Neo-Pragmatism

Historical Context: Gained renewed relevance during the Cold War as an alternative to both Marxist and traditional metaphysical approaches. The Vietnam War era prompted pragmatists to reconnect philosophy with practical political concerns.

Building on American pragmatism, this tradition expanded through:

• Richard Rorty's critique of representational theories of knowledge and philosophical foundationalism
• Wilfrid Sellars's critique of the "myth of the given" and coherentist epistemology
• Hilary Putnam's internal realism and pragmatic turn
• C.I. Lewis's conceptual pragmatism and theory of value
• Robert Brandom's inferentialism and pragmatic theory of meaning

4. Moral and Political Philosophy

Historical Context: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), civil rights movements, and decolonization forced reconsideration of traditional ethical frameworks. The welfare state's emergence in Western Europe and the United States sparked debates about justice and distribution.

This era saw the emergence of new ethical theories and approaches:

• John Rawls' A Theory of Justice and political liberalism, introducing the veil of ignorance
• Bernard Williams's critique of systematic moral theory and moral luck
• Isaiah Berlin's concepts of positive and negative liberty
• Michael Walzer's spheres of justice and complex equality
• Charles Taylor's communitarian critique of liberalism and politics of recognition
• Elizabeth Anscombe's revival of virtue ethics and critique of modern moral philosophy
• Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen's capability approach to human development

5. Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science

Historical Context: The development of computers, artificial intelligence (particularly after the 1956 Dartmouth Conference), and advances in neuroscience created new questions about consciousness and cognition. The "cognitive revolution" of the 1950s-60s challenged behaviorism's dominance.

Post-war philosophy of mind tackled fundamental questions about consciousness and cognition:

• Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model of consciousness and intentional stance
• Jerry Fodor's computational theory of mind and modularity thesis
• Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" and the hard problem of consciousness
• Patricia and Paul Churchland's eliminative materialism
• Fred Dretske's information-theoretic approach to mental content
• Andy Clark's extended mind thesis and embodied cognition

6. Additional Important Movements

Philosophy of Science

Historical Context: The Space Race, nuclear physics, and biological discoveries (DNA structure in 1953) challenged traditional views of scientific progress. The environmental movement of the 1960s-70s questioned the value-neutrality of science.

Key developments:

• Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts
• Paul Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism and against method
• Imre Lakatos's research programs and sophisticated falsificationism

Philosophy of Biology

Historical Context: The Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory, molecular biology's rise, and the discovery of DNA's structure transformed biological understanding, demanding philosophical attention.

Major contributions:

• Elliott Sober's evolutionary theory and philosophical analysis
• David Hull's philosophy of biological sciences and species concepts
• Analysis of reductionism in biology and emergence

Non-Western Philosophical Traditions

Historical Context: Decolonization movements (1950s-60s) and the Non-Aligned Movement prompted renewed interest in non-Western philosophical traditions. Independence movements in Africa and Asia led to philosophical reexamination of cultural identity.

Significant developments:

• African Philosophy: Kwasi Wiredu's conceptual decolonization
• Latin American Philosophy: Enrique Dussel's philosophy of liberation
• Indian Philosophy: B.K. Matilal's logic and epistemology
• Comparative philosophy and cross-cultural dialogue

Environmental and Feminist Philosophy

Historical Context: Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (1962), the first Earth Day (1970), and second-wave feminism (1960s-70s) created new philosophical concerns. The personal computer revolution of the 1980s raised new questions about technology and society.

Key developments:

• Ecological ethics and environmental philosophy
• Judith Butler's gender performativity theory
• Feminist epistemology and standpoint theory
• Ecofeminism and environmental justice

Key Historical Contexts

Institutional Changes

• Creation of UNESCO (1945) promoted international philosophical dialogue
• Expansion of higher education systems worldwide (1950s-60s)
• Foundation of critical journals and societies
• Rise of interdisciplinary centers and institutes

Technological Impact

• Television's spread influenced discussions of mass media and reality
• Space exploration sparked new questions about humanity's place in cosmos
• Nuclear technology raised novel ethical and existential questions
• Computer development challenged notions of mind and intelligence

Social Transformations

• Mass migration changed demographic landscapes
• Consumer society emergence prompted criticism of materialism
• Urbanization affected discussions of community and alienation
• Globalization challenged traditional philosophical boundaries

Political and Cultural Context

• The analytic-continental divide reflected institutional and cultural separations
• Cold War influence on political philosophy and ethics
• Civil rights movement's impact on social and political philosophy
• Postcolonial thought's challenge to Western philosophical assumptions

Buy a gun.

So, I no longer care. As soon as I can complete my mental remodeling, I will be the sweetest, least aware old man you ever met. My goal is to be unaware of Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment until well after they are installed. I will have lots of opinions about AI, Javascript, the best kind of tomato sauce (I made amazing spaghetti sauce this week!), and all manner of things that do not require me to pay attention to this stupid fucking country that has betrayed everything I care about. ‘Cared’ about.

Ghandi would have said that you cannot defeat your enemy by becoming him. Today that sounds like weak tea but, he's the only person who ever forced a global empire to its knees. Personally, I long for violence but I doubt that I am wise.

Me: You’re too stupid. I’m not talking to you anymore.

In a step by step process, first write a bullet point summary of the top level point or points made in this text. Then, make a list of every fact and conclusion presented in it. For each, add an assertion about whether it is actual fact or is an error AND whether the fact or conclusion properly supports that point. Where possible, include a citation and/or URL. Then discuss any possible errors or misleading conclusions from the text. Finally, make a conclusion whether the text is accurate and should be relied upon. End with a judgement: Accurate or Misleading.

You can see an example of the result at the end (that means scroll to the bottom!) of this conversation.

Randomness is the only true reality, from which physical laws, the universe, and everything within it emerge, is a radical yet compelling framework for understanding existence. The essence of reality is not order or deterministic rules, but a seething sea of chaotic possibilities, bubbling up from the quantum foam. It is from this primordial randomness that the intricate tapestry of the universe, along with the laws that govern it, accidentally coalesces. This idea is articulated through modern physics, exploring how it is supported while addressing the challenges and contradictions it faces.

The Quantum Foam: A Foundation of Randomness

In physics, the concept of quantum foam describes the structure of spacetime at the smallest possible scales, on the order of the Planck length. At this scale, spacetime is not smooth or continuous, but rather turbulent and frothy, dominated by incessant quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are inherently random, and their effects could be anything—including creating a Big Bang, perhaps with different values for the fundamental physical constants. Virtual particles—ephemeral pairs of matter and antimatter—flicker in and out of existence due to these fluctuations. They are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which dictates that certain pairs of properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision.

This principle implies that on the smallest scales, the universe is fundamentally random. There is no way to predict exactly when and where these fluctuations will occur, or what forms they will take. Randomness is the most fundamental property of reality, partly because it represents the highest entropy state. Everything else, including physical laws, is an emergent consequence of this chaotic foundation.

Physical Laws as Emergent Properties of Randomness

In classical physics, physical laws are seen as fundamental truths that govern the behavior of matter and energy. These laws are not fundamental at all. Instead, they might be the statistical regularities that emerge from the chaotic fluctuations of the quantum foam. This idea is analogous to flipping coins: while each individual flip is random, certain patterns—such as a thousand heads in a row after a trillion flips—become apparent when considering a large enough sample. These patterns are not imposed from the outside; they are intrinsic to the process of flipping.

The laws of physics emerge from the random interactions of quantum fields. In this view, every particle, every force, and every interaction is a manifestation of randomness, stabilized over immense scales of space and time. The constants of nature, such as the speed of light or the strength of the fundamental forces, could be seen as "fixed points" that have arisen purely by chance. In other words, the universe as we know it is the outcome of an incredibly improbable, yet inevitable, arrangement of random fluctuations—like seeing a hundred heads in a row after a trillion coin flips.

The Birth of the Universe from Randomness

Randomness underlies the universe, aligning with certain cosmological models. The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal suggests that the universe could have spontaneously arisen from a quantum fluctuation in a state where time and space had no boundaries. If the quantum foam is a primordial sea of potentialities, then the Big Bang might be just one of countless bubbles of order emerging from it. This bubble expanded, inflated, and cooled, giving rise to spacetime, matter, and energy as we perceive them.

The inflationary model of the early universe provides further support for this view. During inflation, tiny quantum fluctuations were exponentially stretched to macroscopic scales, seeding the formation of galaxies and large-scale structures. These fluctuations were random, yet they laid the groundwork for all subsequent cosmic evolution. In this context, the vast and structured universe we observe today can be understood as the fossilized imprint of primordial randomness, amplified and sculpted by subsequent physical processes.

Statistical Regularities and the Appearance of Order

If randomness is truly fundamental, the question arises of how the universe exhibits such regularity and predictability. The answer lies in the concept of statistical mechanics, which shows that macroscopic order can emerge from microscopic chaos. In thermodynamics, for example, the behavior of gases is described by laws like the ideal gas law, even though individual gas molecules move randomly. These macroscopic laws are not imposed from above; they are statistical regularities that arise naturally from the random motions of countless particles.

In a similar vein, the laws of physics might be viewed as large-scale statistical patterns that emerge from the underlying randomness of quantum fluctuations. Over time and across vast expanses of space, certain stable configurations and relationships dominate, giving the appearance of fixed, deterministic laws. But these laws are merely effective descriptions—emergent properties that capture the collective behavior of innumerable random events.

Addressing the Challenges and Contradictions

While this hypothesis is consistent with many aspects of modern physics, it also encounters significant challenges. The universe, as we know it, began as a singularity, where the fundamental physical laws were set at the moment of instantiation. These laws remain consistent across the universe due to underlying self-organizing principles. The concept of self-organized criticality explains how systems naturally evolve toward critical states, where minor fluctuations can lead to large-scale order. This self-organizing behavior accounts for the larger, consistent observations we make, making the universality of physical laws an inevitable outcome.

Another challenge is the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing physical phenomena. Despite reality being fundamentally random, mathematics, a construct of human thought, precisely captures the workings of the universe due to its intrinsic connection to emergent patterns. One possible explanation is that mathematical structures are not just human inventions but are intrinsic to the patterns that emerge from randomness. Mathematics might be the language that best expresses these emergent patterns, allowing us to model and predict their behavior.

Most importantly, the idea that randomness is the only reality lacks falsifiability, a key criterion for scientific theories. Since randomness can produce any possible outcome given enough time, no observation or experiment could definitively prove or disprove it. This renders the hypothesis more of a metaphysical or quasi-religious idea rather than a scientific one. It is a framework for interpreting reality rather than a theory that can be tested and refined through empirical inquiry.

Reconciling Randomness and Determinism

Despite these challenges, randomness as the foundation of reality has profound implications. It suggests that determinism, as we perceive it, is an illusion that arises from the averaging out of countless random events. This perspective reconciles the apparent contradiction between the indeterminism of quantum mechanics and the determinism of classical physics. At the quantum level, randomness reigns supreme, but at larger scales, the cumulative effect of countless random events gives rise to stable, deterministic laws.

A Philosophical Perspective Grounded in Physics

Randomness as the only true reality, from which physical laws and the universe itself emerge, offers a radical reinterpretation of existence. It is an attempt to explain how order and structure can arise from the most fundamental chaos. While this idea is consistent with many concepts in modern physics—such as quantum fluctuations, the inflationary model, and statistical mechanics—it faces a significant challenge in terms of scientific validation.

Ultimately, this is not a falsifiable scientific theory but a philosophical framework that invites reconsideration of the nature of reality. It satisfies the principle of the least hypothesis by reducing all of existence to a single underlying property: randomness. Yet, it also acknowledges that this randomness gives rise to emergent properties that we interpret as physical laws, structure, and meaning. In this sense, it is a quasi-religious idea, not in the sense of invoking supernatural entities, but in offering a fundamental, unprovable claim about the nature of existence.

By embracing randomness as the foundation of reality, we are left with a vision of the universe where every pattern, every law, and every conscious being is the product of a grand cosmic lottery—a rare alignment of chaotic fluctuations that, through sheer chance, have resulted in the world as we perceive it. This perspective challenges us to find meaning not in deterministic laws or divine order, but in the beautiful improbability of our own existence.

Note: This essay started as an experiment with the new ChatGPT Canvas interface. It is also the first thing I've co-written with GPT that I do not feel needs a primary attribution as an AI product. The Canvas interface allowed me to very closely guide the construction of the work. While GPT wrote the actual words, I spent an hour in dialog to elucidate the facts and develop the argument. Another hour closely editing and rewriting with the Canvas interface. I feel comfortable in calling this essay my own with GPT relegated to the role of some combination of a word processor with super powers and an insanely knowledgeable friend.

Dear Everybody,

The Olivia Nuzzi RFK sex cult is only a big deal in the smallest sense of the word. Her continuing to report on RFK while banging him is BAD, full stop. Also, who cares? She came clean and has been removed from her post. Add an asterisk to her previous reportage and call the job done.

That leaves two other questions.

First, should she get the death penalty? The answer is, Jesus people, have you never been young and stupid? She was all flushed up with those awesome dead bear orgasms in hotels on her expense account and wanted to level up to whale's head mind blown frenzy. She did a bad thing in which no lives were lost, no old ladies we bilked of their life savings and the republic was not destroyed. I think a year or two of management side-eye, along with all her friends looking at her and thinking "ew" is adequate penance.

The second is, should we still be talking about this? The answer is, Don't you have doors to knock on? Campaign phone banks to attend? Donations to give? Isn't there an interesting new way you could be spending your time making sure your local election staff is going to let Democrats vote? To still prioritize this after, what's it been, a week is stalker obsessive, imho.

Look people. The story should be known (spoiler, we do know fer christs sakes) and Nuzzi should be sanctioned (she has). But this is inside-baseball level of 'who cares'. The only reason to still be talking about it would be if she was a right-wing scumbag and we could use this as a cynical excuse to ruin her life. 

As it is, she is a Democrat who screwed up. A young woman who let her, uh, enthusiasms get ahold of her judgement. Sure, it was RFK but, tell me that none of your sexual escapades involved assholes or that you never carried a guilty secret longer than you should have.

I would prefer not to hear about it anymore if you don't mind. It's not that I think it's "no big". It's just not, "keep harping on it forever big".  I would be much happier if everyone spent their anti-Nuzzi energy on pro-Kamala things.

My brother spent a happy hour with GPT and the debate transcript trying to find out what they actually said. He concludes, "I felt like trump fell back to “millions of criminals” ten times. In my mind trump mad five erroneous points with heavy weighting on insanity, and Harris made 8-10 points, most of which were reasonable."

(One point below is edited because it was opposite of what was said.)

Enjoy...

GPT: Here is a more detailed and neutral list of every idea or assertion made by each candidate, grouped by candidate and including the number of times each assertion was made:

Vice President Kamala Harris:

1. The economy is focused on helping the middle class and working families (2 times).

2. The administration has extended a $6,000 child tax credit to help young families with expenses (1 time).

3. Small businesses will receive a $50,000 tax deduction under her administration (1 time).

4. Trump’s economic policies favor billionaires and large corporations (3 times).

5. Trump’s economic policies would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars (2 times).

6. Economists and experts support her economic plan while criticizing Trump’s (2 times).

7. Trump left the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression (1 time).

8. Trump left the worst public health crisis in a century (1 time).

9. Trump’s administration left the worst attack on democracy since the Civil War (1 time).

10. Project 2025 is a dangerous plan that Trump will implement if elected (2 times).

11. The administration needs to focus on uniting the country rather than dividing it (2 times).

12. Trump’s tariffs have resulted in trade deficits and didn’t benefit the U.S. economy (2 times).

13. Housing affordability is a major issue that her policies address (1 time).

14. Survivors of rape and incest should have the right to decide about their bodies (2 times).

15. Trump’s abortion policies make it criminal for doctors and nurses to provide care (2 times).

16. She will reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade if Congress passes a bill (2 times).

17. Women should not be denied medical care for miscarriages due to fear of prosecution (1 time).

18. Trump’s administration thanked President Xi of China during COVID (1 time).

19. The current administration is prosecuting criminal organizations at the border (1 time).

20. Trump called for the killing of an immigration bill that would have provided resources to combat fentanyl (2 times).

21. People leave Trump’s rallies early because they are exhausted and bored (1 time).

22. Republican leaders have endorsed her, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and others (1 time).

23. Trump has contempt for the Constitution and is unfit for office, according to his former staff (2 times).

24. Trump incited the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol (2 times).

25. Trump praised the Proud Boys and extremists in Charlottesville (2 times).

26. The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose (2 times).

27. Trump changed his positions on abortion multiple times (1 time).

28. She has met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine five times to support Ukraine (1 time).

29. The Biden administration has brought together 50 countries to support Ukraine (1 time).

30. The Biden administration’s support has enabled Ukraine to remain independent (1 time).

31. Putin would be in Kyiv if Trump were president (1 time).

32. The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine to prevent Russia from moving further into Europe (2 times).

33. The U.S. must uphold international rules and norms in foreign policy (2 times).

34. Trump negotiated a weak deal with the Taliban and invited them to Camp David (2 times).

35. The administration has ended the U.S. military’s combat involvement in war zones for the first time in this century (1 time).

36. Trump’s deal with the Taliban involved the release of 5,000 terrorists (2 times).

37. Trump’s admiration for dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un weakens the U.S. position internationally (3 times).

38. Trump is wrong and weak on national security and foreign policy (2 times).

39. Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election results threaten democracy (2 times).

40. Military leaders have said Trump is a disgrace and unfit to lead (2 times).

41. The Biden administration has invested in increasing domestic oil production (1 time).

42. She supports diverse energy sources to reduce reliance on foreign oil (1 time).

43. IVF treatments are being denied to couples under Trump’s abortion policies (1 time).

44. Fracking has not been banned under her administration (2 times).

45. The Inflation Reduction Act has opened new leases for fracking (1 time).

46. Trump’s claims about millions of people eating pets are extreme and false (1 time).

Former President Donald Trump:

1. Trump does not have a national sales tax; Harris’s claims about this are false (2 times).

2. Tariffs on foreign countries benefit the U.S. by making other nations pay back their debts (3 times).

3. Trump’s tariffs have brought in billions of dollars, particularly from China (2 times).

4. Inflation under the Biden-Harris administration is the worst in U.S. history (2 times).

5. Trump’s administration had virtually no inflation during his term (2 times).

6. Millions of criminals, including people from prisons and mental institutions, are entering the U.S. under the Biden-Harris administration (3 times).

7. Migrants are taking jobs from African Americans, Hispanics, and union workers (2 times).

8. Some migrants are criminals and are taking over towns violently (2 times).

9. Trump claims migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s pets (2 times).

10. Trump claims that middle-class Americans were hurt by inflation and rising prices under Biden (2 times).

11. Trump built the greatest economy in U.S. history and will do it again (2 times).

12. Harris has no detailed plan for the economy and is copying Biden’s weak policies (2 times).

13. Harris and Biden’s immigration policies are destroying the country (3 times).

14. Trump supports exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (2 times).

15. They are killing babies after they are born.

16. Trump’s policies returned the abortion issue to the states where it belongs (2 times).

17. Harris’s accusations about a national abortion ban are lies (2 times).

18. Trump claims Democrats support abortion in the ninth month and even execution after birth (1 time).

19. Trump’s administration was strong on foreign policy, and Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president (2 times).

20. Trump would end the Ukraine-Russia war in 24 hours through negotiations (3 times).

21. Harris and Biden have weakened the U.S. position internationally, emboldening adversaries (3 times).

22. Iran has gained wealth and influence under the Biden administration and is supporting terrorist groups (2 times).

23. Harris has no plan for handling foreign policy effectively (2 times).

24. Trump denies responsibility for the January 6 Capitol attack, blaming Pelosi and the D.C. mayor for not securing the Capitol (2 times).

25. The election was rigged, and Trump did not lose in 2020 (3 times).

26. Trump’s legal cases are politically motivated, and he will win on appeal (2 times).

27. Trump’s energy policies kept gas prices low, and the Biden administration reversed them (2 times).

28. Fracking and fossil fuels are vital to the economy, and Harris would destroy the industry (2 times).

29. Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban but blames Biden for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal (2 times).

30. Trump claims he fired many top officials for incompetence during his presidency (2 times).

31. Harris is the worst vice president in U.S. history (2 times).

32. Trump claims that Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, respects and supports him (1 time).

33. World leaders and adversaries respected Trump but are emboldened under Biden (2 times).

34. Harris and Biden are pushing the country toward World War III with weak foreign policy (2 times).

35. Harris hates Israel and the country would not survive under her leadership (2 times).

36. Trump’s administration ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline while Biden allowed it to continue (2 times).

37. Trump believes the U.S. should prioritize stopping the Ukraine war rather than focusing on who wins (1 time).

38. Trump has strong relationships with both Zelenskyy and Putin and would use those connections to end the war (1 time).

39. Harris’s involvement in negotiations before the Ukraine war was weak and led to the invasion (1 time).

40. Harris’s foreign policy approach would lead to the destruction of Israel and chaos in the Middle East (2 times).

41. Trump claims he was the first president to get NATO countries to pay their fair share (1 time).

This list includes all the assertions and ideas mentioned by each candidate, regardless of whether they represent political positions, and the number of times each assertion was made during the debate.

Using GPT and IRS data from 2021, I evaluated the accuracy of a meme panel. The bottom line is that the meme panel captures the spirit of income inequality but substantially exaggerates the numbers. 

Here is the real data:

Here is the meme panel. Notice that it deducts counts of individuals, not percentages as above. This makes the meme panel less correct.

And, here is the entire calculation:

Here is the raw data:

It came from THIS PAGE.

With help from my favorite AI, I extracted specifics from this article by David French. If the people of America could somehow understand what this monster has planned, he would be run out of town on a rail.

You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.

"Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate."

Summary:

1. **Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants**:

   - Economic disruption due to loss of labor in key industries.

     - *Example: Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants could result in a loss of $1.6 trillion from the U.S. economy over 10 years (Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. workers' employment and wages.

     - *Example: For every one million undocumented workers deported, 88,000 U.S. native workers could lose their jobs, leading to a cumulative loss of 263,000 jobs per year (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Reduction in consumer demand, leading to further economic decline.

     - *Example: Businesses in immigrant-heavy communities could see a drop in sales, leading to closures and a decline in local economic activity (East et al., "The Labor Market Effects of Immigration Enforcement").*

   - Social and community disruption, especially in areas with mixed-status families.

     - *Example: Deportations could lead to thousands of U.S. citizen children being placed in foster care as their undocumented parents are removed (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

2. **Imposition of a 10% Across-the-Board Tariff on All Imported Products**:

   - Increase in consumer prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households.

     - *Example: Tariffs could raise consumer costs by $320 for the bottom income quintile and up to $2,250 for the fourth quintile annually (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Potential for a severe global trade war, leading to further economic downturn.

     - *Example: A global trade war could result in the stock market dropping by 11.5%, wiping out $4.12 trillion in market value (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. export industries due to exchange rate effects.

     - *Example: U.S. income could be 3% lower due to the trade war, reflecting reduced competitiveness of American goods abroad (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Long-term damage to global trade systems and economic efficiency.

     - *Example: The reorganization of global value chains could lead to a costly shift away from efficiency, harming long-term economic growth (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

3. **Making the 2017 Tax Cuts Permanent**:

   - Greater financial benefit to the wealthy, with minimal impact on lower-income groups.

     - *Example: Those in the top 0.1% would receive a $278,240 annual tax cut, while those in the bottom quintile would get only $130 (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Net loss for 80% of the population when combined with the effects of higher consumer prices due to tariffs.

     - *Example: A family in the bottom income quintile could face a net loss of $190 annually after accounting for a $320 increase in costs and a $130 tax cut (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Increased federal budget deficits over the next decade.

     - *Example: Trump’s tax and spending proposals could increase the federal deficit by $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years (Penn Wharton Budget Model).*

4. **Increased White House Influence Over Monetary Policy**:

   - Risk of politically motivated monetary decisions that could harm the economy.

     - *Example: Politically driven monetary policy could lead to inflation, with costs akin to those faced by Argentina, where inflation rates exceeded 50% annually during economic crises (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

   - Potential for inflation and economic instability, drawing comparisons to historical economic crises in other countries.

     - *Example: The U.S. could experience severe economic instability, potentially resulting in double-digit inflation and high unemployment rates similar to those seen in the 1970s (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

5. **Cutting Off Federal Funding to Schools with Vaccine or Mask Mandates**:

   - Increased risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases in schools.

     - *Example: Cutting federal funds could lead to a resurgence of diseases like measles, which had a 90% infection rate among unvaccinated individuals exposed during outbreaks (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Potential public health crisis, leading to higher child mortality and disrupted education.

     - *Example: School outbreaks of preventable diseases could result in the deaths of hundreds of children and widespread school closures, disrupting education for millions (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Deepening divisions within communities over public health measures.

     - *Example: Communities could become polarized, with heated conflicts over school health policies leading to social unrest and deteriorating public trust (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/3/22/us-demographic-projections-with-and-without-immigration

Reason Magazine is usually wrong and it is in this case, too. People do not want "fewer rights". I don't even think they want to censor views they do not like. Much like they do not actually want to take your gun away, people see that the first and second amendment are dangerous because they enable terrible new capabilities based on modern technology.. 

Polls consistently say that guns with high capacity for murder should be banned. They don't want guns banned, they want the ability to have and use them make sense.

Nobody yet does a poll that asks if anyone should be able to tell lies to tens of millions of people a hundred times a day for free but, if they did, they would find that protecting this is where people think the first amendment goes too far.

They don't want free speech banned but they do not want society to be destroyed by billionaires able to flood the information space and corporations providing the free ability for any asshole to manipulate millions without any consequences.

High capacity guns. Free internet reach to millions. The second amendment in the lunatic view of the 'originalist' Supreme Court has led the way to an absolutist view on the first amendment that is equally dangerous.

And that doesn't even mention the 'freedom of religion' clause that has been interpreted to mean religious people get to use modern institutions and technology to force religion on the rest of us.

https://reason.com/2024/08/03/more-than-half-of-americans-think-the-first-amendment-provides-too-many-rights/

I found this excellent analysis of The Dangers of Surveillance. 

The following AI written list of harms that could result from universal camera surveillance matches my understanding from reading the article:

I am completely enthusiastic about your desire to enjoy your religious views. I want you to go to church and, with all the people who have agreed to talk about it, go crazy. I just don't want to hear it and I think society would be much, much, much better off if we took it out of the public conversation.

And so, Taylor gets the treatment again. Two years after her previous one, she releases a new album, Tortured Poets Department, and, again, the poopy meta analysis begins. Too this. Too little that. So much. So soon. So so so. Couldn't she just be less?

Here's what I think: Her fans love it. That's all that matters and, if you're not a fan just shut the hell up. The NY Times puts this on the front page. More negative click bait.

The first time I listened to the album, it felt long. The second time, less so. Then a friend noted four tracks she liked and I listened to them several times. And here's the thing about Taylor Swift, each time I listened to them, I liked them more. I've listened more to others since.

Previously, I wondered, are any of them going to be caught in my head on repeat like Love Store or Blank Space do? Each time I listened, I noted an interesting little hook. Felt the frisson as I recognized a moment where she had captured another subtle idea in a sweet turn of phrase.

She will tell you herself that her most important art form is lyric. I think that's fair. I don't think she's ever going to be compared, on a strictly music level with, say, Lennon/McCartney, Irving Berlin or Brian Wilson, people who were innovators in music style and structure, per se. But, listen to the song Fortnight a couple of times and I don't believe anyone who loves music can come away with anything short of delight and a tune stuck in your head, on repeat.

This article is bullshit. The songs, one by one or in a group, are lovely. Taylor is a force of nature. I consider having discovered her from a fan perspective to be a huge gift to my life. I have another thing to enjoy and she is good.

I consider my main goal to be lowering the bar to match my capability. I try to be satisfied by the things in my life that are good.

I am old enough so that getting sick as a prelude to dying is part of the planning process. I intend to have perfected my ability to look on the bright side by being able to take full satisfaction about any tiny thing that is good.

To the extent possible, I hope to avoid allowing negative stuff to influence my self evaluation or sense of happiness.

I am an old, male boomer. I want to shout: I think the anti-millennial crap spewed by older people is utter bullshit. It's unfair. It's wrong. It's so horrible I categorize it as on par with full-on racism.

Millenial people (they are not 'millenials', some mythic creature in your imagination) did, in actual fact, grow up and come of age in a remarkably shitty time. Worse than other bad times, maybe yes, maybe no, but from 9-11 on, American society has not been good. This is compounded by their vicious exploitation by the ruling classes and corporations. You needn't go any farther than the elimination of art and music from public school, to the cost of college education and then the rapacious structure of the student loan industry.

But another thing that matured in the lives of millennial people is the technology of worker exploitation. The fucking over of young people in the job market is unconscionable. And, as with student loans, it's abetted by the government (though more on one side of the aisle than the other) supporting corporations uber alles.

Before networked technology, it wasn't practical to manage randomized work schedules that make you work days alternating with working nights. There weren't as many jobs simple enough that firing an experience worker because they are making an extra buck an hour and you can hire a new one for less. It makes your life miserable on purpose.

We won't talk about climate change, the unwholesomeness of food, or mass shootings every day, or etc, but they count, too. Suffice to say, I agree that things suck today and tell you that they are actual things that have been done, almost maliciously, mostly to young people.

I also think that much of it could have been avoided. I think the older peoples' condemnation of millennial people is mostly projection. They cannot face the guilt of having wrecked the culture and the planet so they blame the victims.

I start to say that I also apologize for my age cohort and it's bad behavior but, that doesn't capture my real feeling. I am enraged and ashamed of being part of such a rapacious, short sighted and prejudiced bunch.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-trad-wife

Bertrand Russell says,

“The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians, consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history derived from the Jews; and third, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism*, and to kindred cults of the Near East.

The most important Jewish elements in Christianity appear to me to be the following:

• I. A sacred history, beginning with the creation, leading to a consummation in the future, and justifying the ways of God to man.

• II. The existence of a small section of mankind whom God specially loves. For Jews, this section was the Chosen People; for

Christians, the elect.

• III. A new conception of ‘righteousness’. The virtue of almsgiving, for example, was taken over by Christianity from later Judaism. The importance attached to baptism might be derived from Orphism or from oriental pagan mystery religions, but practical philanthropy, as an element in the Christian conception of virtue, seems to have come from the Jews.

• IV. The Law. Christians kept part of the Hebrew Law, for instance the decalogue, while they rejected its ceremonial and ritual parts. But in practice they attached to the Creed much the same feelings that the Jews attached to the Law. This involved the doctrine that correct belief is at least as important as virtuous action, a doctrine which is essentially Hellenic. What is Jewish in origin is the exclusiveness of the elect. 

• V. The Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah would bring them temporal prosperity, and victory over their enemies here on earth; moreover, he remained in the future. For Christians, the Messiah was the historical Jesus, who was also identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy; and it was not on earth, but in heaven, that the Messiah was to enable his followers to triumph over their enemies.

• VI. The Kingdom of Heaven. Other-worldliness is a conception which Jews and Christians, in a sense, share with later Platonism, but it takes, with them, a much more concrete form than with Greek philosophers. The Greek doctrine — which is to be found in much Christian philosophy, but not in popular Christianity — was that the sensible world, in space and time, is an illusion, and that, by intellectual and moral discipline, a man can learn to live in the eternal world, which alone is real. The Jewish and Christian doctrine, on the other hand, conceived the Other World as not metaphysically different from this world, but as in the future, when the virtuous would enjoy everlasting bliss and the wicked would suffer everlasting torment. This belief embodied revenge psychology, and was intelligible to all and sundry, as the doctrines of Greek philosophers were not. 

To understand the origin of these beliefs, we must take account of certain facts in Jewish history, to which we will now turn our attention ...“

— Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Book Two. Catholic Philosophy, Part. I. The Fathers, Ch. I: The Religious Development of the Jews, pp. 307-09

━━

* Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned.

— Bertrand Russell, Portraits From Memory And Other Essays (1950), Essay: V. Beliefs: Discarded and Retained, pp. 40-1

 Long ago, the failed presidential candidate, Ross Perot, said that he could not understand how anyone felt they could trust someone who didn't believe in God (his, of course) because, without a divine imperative, why would they adhere to any moral code. That pissed me off and I've been thinking about it ever since.

The essay above is the basic idea of my answer to the question, Where does morality come from if humans are basically just overgrown yeast cells in a universe that doesn't care. Or, more simply, why don't we kill each other with the same zest as great white sharks at a beach.

The basic premise is that our brains are built to appreciate order and safety. Other things, too, that add up to what the religious types attribute to "God's will" but are instead fundamental aspects of human biology.

Along the way, I have become interested in philosophy. It turns out that there are a lot of people who have tried to figure out more about what is going on in our culture and the universe. Among those are the two I mention above, Kierkegaard and Sartre (he's the guy that inspired the picture below). They are among the earliest people (along with Hume and Kant a hundred years before from a completely different perspective) to really explore how humans get their morality without assuming 'God made them do it'.

Neurological Existentialism is an attempt to improve on their answers. On the one hand by explaining how we could be 'good' without God to tell us how. On the other, how we can be fulfilled without God telling us that we are ok.

Kierkegaard's exploration of existential challenges rooted in a supernatural God and Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom, while insightful, each possess inherent limitations. Kierkegaard's reliance on supernaturalism may pose difficulties for those without religious faith, while Sartre's oversight of human biology neglects the profound influence of our neurobiology on existential experiences.

In response to these limitations, Neurological Existentialism emerges as a synthesis—a third way—aimed at reconciling tensions between the supernatural and the natural, and between existential freedom and biological determinism. At its core lies an acknowledgment of the intrinsic interplay between our biological makeup and our existential experiences. Within this framework, innate human tendencies—fear, desire, and the pursuit of order—serve as foundational elements in shaping ethical principles and existential choices.

By redefining the concept of the "leap of faith" as an exploration and belief in our essence, Neurological Existentialism offers a departure from Kierkegaard's reliance on supernatural belief. Instead of leaping towards a transcendent deity, we are encouraged to delve into the depths of our neurobiological makeup and existential experiences to discover meaning and purpose.

Similarly, the notion of "radical freedom" is reconceptualized within Neurological Existentialism. Rather than a daunting expanse of boundless choice, radical freedom becomes a liberating recognition that our actions are guided by our neurological characteristics. These characteristics offer both support and constraints, providing a framework for navigating our existential journey with greater understanding and acceptance.

In embarking on this philosophical endeavor, Neurological Existentialism offers a compelling synthesis—a third way—that integrates scientific inquiry with existential reflection. Through this synthesis, we deepen our comprehension of the complexities of human existence and the pursuit of ethical understanding. This paradigm transcends the limitations of previous philosophical models, fostering a holistic approach to grappling with the intricacies of human nature and experience.

Here's my idea: Don't talk about people at all. Don't say someone is normal, neurotypical, smart, ugly or tall, unless you are actively helping them solve an individual problem that you are qualified for.