homesafe

**Runtime** ⏱️

Over 228,000 hours (26y)

**Equipment** 🤸💪

tall & skinny flesh-automaton (decent condition,) "amab" sex-characteristics (enjoyable condition,) negligible melanin radiation-shielding, "Book Store Guy" cosmetics (low-budget/effort)

**Mind-Design** 🧠🧘

homosapian, social-status game blind, "normalcy" blind, world-modeling fixation, ethics & civilization-design fixation, well-being of all priority

↪️ **Mind-Design** Subcategory

**Sexuality/Intimacy** :

trans-omnisexual ¹

mildly demi-sexual for active flirting/pursuit

mildly disprefer playing most types of "submissive" roles in relationships

approximately 12+ AoA ²

polyamorous

footnotes

1 - "feminine" features typically attract me most, and there are narrow regions of physical-feature-space where I've almost never felt attraction

but if there was a soda dispenser that had options like "juice that makes you gay" - I'd brew a *Concoction* by taking a bit from each nozzle

2 - "12-13" is roughly where I start becoming interested "in that way" ,,, that "plus-sign" goes up to ... 50 years old (approximately)

Anyone can hit me up in DMs, for any reason

SimpleX link & Matrix address below ✍️🗨️

I never use LLMs/image-generators

🪙 = Default Like Emoji - "this stands out to me as valuable"

SimpleX: https://smp19.simplex.im/a#7Cr7fbHHM8abuIwMH7q41khNTlZMQ4JtOaRIvOkFYcU
Matrix: @stuckydelve:snepsocial.net

Public Key

npub1xja9xe200zxaku924rj9u5y5x9m0r60t7nppvupt94ttm3vvmzhqapyqae

NIP-05 Address

stuckydelve_at_gimmeloli.cc@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrfwjnv48h3rwmwz423ez72z2rzah3a84lfsskwq4j644ackxd3tsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntgmwnte

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub1xja9xe200zxaku924rj9u5y5x9m0r60t7nppvupt94ttm3vvmzhqapyqae

Show more details

Published at

2026-05-30T23:28:02Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "8229e76ddc7f85015ab8f7fd2b38a1f178730b8bd28e564b707b91691b1997e0", "pubkey": "34ba53654f788ddb70aaa8e45e50943176f1e9ebf4c216702b2d56bdc58cd8ae", "created_at": 1780183682, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "proxy", "https://gimmeloli.cc/users/aj1w2io6cmxq2at0", "activitypub" ], [ "L", "pink.momostr" ], [ "l", "pink.momostr.activitypub:https://gimmeloli.cc/users/aj1w2io6cmxq2at0", "pink.momostr" ], [ "-" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"homesafe\",\"about\":\"\\n\\n\\n**Runtime** ⏱️\\n\\nOver 228,000 hours (26y)\\n\\n**Equipment** 🤸💪\\n\\ntall \u0026 skinny flesh-automaton (decent condition,) \\\"amab\\\" sex-characteristics (enjoyable condition,) negligible melanin radiation-shielding, \\\"Book Store Guy\\\" cosmetics (low-budget/effort)\\n\\n**Mind-Design** 🧠🧘\\n\\nhomosapian, social-status game blind, \\\"normalcy\\\" blind, world-modeling fixation, ethics \u0026 civilization-design fixation, well-being of all priority\\n\\n↪️ **Mind-Design** Subcategory\\n\\n**Sexuality/Intimacy** :\\n\\ntrans-omnisexual ¹ \\n\\nmildly demi-sexual for active flirting/pursuit\\n\\nmildly disprefer playing most types of \\\"submissive\\\" roles in relationships \\n\\napproximately 12+ AoA ²\\n\\npolyamorous \\n\\nfootnotes \\n\\n1 - \\\"feminine\\\" features typically attract me most, and there are narrow regions of physical-feature-space where I've almost never felt attraction \\n\\nbut if there was a soda dispenser that had options like \\\"juice that makes you gay\\\" - I'd brew a *Concoction* by taking a bit from each nozzle\\n\\n2 - \\\"12-13\\\" is roughly where I start becoming interested \\\"in that way\\\" ,,, that \\\"plus-sign\\\" goes up to ... 50 years old (approximately) \\n\\n\\nAnyone can hit me up in DMs, for any reason\\n\\nSimpleX link \u0026 Matrix address below ✍️🗨️\\n\\n\\nI never use LLMs/image-generators\\n\\n\\n🪙 = Default Like Emoji - \\\"this stands out to me as valuable\\\"\\n\\nSimpleX: https://smp19.simplex.im/a#7Cr7fbHHM8abuIwMH7q41khNTlZMQ4JtOaRIvOkFYcU\\nMatrix: @stuckydelve:snepsocial.net\\n\",\"website\":\"https://gimmeloli.cc/@stuckydelve\",\"picture\":\"https://gimmeloli.cc/files/webpublic-0b68da15-5dd8-4a29-b092-57f7f7e23c17.jpg\",\"banner\":\"https://gimmeloli.cc/files/ba62b89e-8ee1-424f-8dad-2fe674a29fa3.jpg\",\"nip05\":\"stuckydelve_at_gimmeloli.cc@momostr.pink\"}", "sig": "d79b15309379e99d44900da38eac7ad31f239ec1982b497a957819b2f4cb796a818a3f8dfb0dda3314c41fc1b82dfcdaa79ae4ca0a439e610d5c316d5457fe0e" }

Last Notes

2026-03-25 03:19:53 UTC

- reply

i *occasionally* do it deliberately with commas as a stylistic flourish , like ,,, writing is more fun for me when i don't disdain to mix in the ~incorrect~ ways to do it
i did pick it up from somewhere tho - and others probably aren't all doing it deliberately
I am, in truth, somewhat practiced in the writing of complete sentences in the 'correct' grammatical English (à la AP, Cambridge, and SAS Style Guides); however, the effort involved in constaining myself within those prescriptions does not, in the end, yield greater frissons of creative delight.
like ,,, if i know what i wanna say, my mind goes back to a childhood with a bin of chaotically mixed legos and half dissolved creations
_
[_]
/; :\
()'---' C
| | |
[=|=]
<small>LEGO - ascii.co.uk</small>
and i just stick→←shit→←together until it says the thingy i'm tryna say

2026-03-22 19:35:20 UTC

- reply

teleguard is weird as a security/privacy option because (as far as i know) there's nothing that makes it distinguishable from something set up by LE agencies or some other kind of secret conspiracy to get kompramat on people
i could just be uninformed, but on the surface it's indistinguishable as something that was directly set up by the NSA or something, where all the bits of data that get sent to it are just being archived by an entity like that

2026-03-18 03:49:18 UTC

- reply

yes, very possibly, this is like,,, if you wanna use that HTML knowledge to do complicated formatting in a text editor that's running Markdown
and if you've got another workflow for using pure HTML, and not just whatever HTML syntax Markdown can process, then it's probably something you can make totally redundant by having template HTML files where you can just write the same sorta stuff you'd be writing in Obsidian - but with the benefit of all the HTML tools
the thing I intend to try to make work is something where I can write these styled-up notes and then just copy them into a proper HTML file
So my style-up writing process can be done in an environment I'm familiar with using
It's possible some other workflow is better for a bunch of reasons, and I should try to find it & learn it, but I'm enjoying this because it's very tiny amounts of learning at any given time & enjoyable results

2026-03-18 03:35:21 UTC

- reply

It should run markdown with just the basic kit that Obsidian comes with?
I'm pretty sure?
Like it runs Markdown, and Markdown displays HTML
Did that not work out of the box?
(edit : to answer your question, I haven't done anything with these styled up notes, yet - though I have played with other markup languages for publishing before)
(More info about what I'm *planning* on doing with this on my profile - most recent "top post" note is relevant)

2026-03-18 03:28:31 UTC

- reply

It should run markdown with just the basic kit that Obsidian comes with?
I'm pretty sure?
Like it runs Markdown, and Markdown displays HTML
Did that not work out of the box?

2026-03-18 03:20:02 UTC

- reply

yeah... it's not a steep learning curve - just, like, stuff will take some fiddling before you figure out what things to click to get something to happen

2026-03-18 03:02:12 UTC

- reply

Obsidian doesn't require an account and has nice functionality for this (?)
Does Obsidian require an account (?) I forget if I signed up when I got it, pretty sure not - I did check their privacy statement about whether they ever collected info about your files or use of the application
And the answer was no - it's just a thing that lives on your device & interacts with your hardware & only connects elsewhere if you tell it to & only for purposes like browsing and downloading community plugins
uhhh, I use Markdown, since it runs in the text editors I have any interest in
The new development was using the feature of Markdown where it runs HTML
The basic codes for Markdown don't hold me back, since I'm familiar with using it - like, lots of applications use the basic Markdown kit for `**bold**` or `*italics*` or whatever
The Markdown feature I got into lately is the HTML thing, because there aren't basic Markdown codes for stuff like
"Center this text, make it 200% bigger, add this background color, change the font to this, change the text color to this"
Or
"Put the image from this link here, give it this alt text, make it this many pixels" or whatever
and, like, I can make a pass at writing something with regular plain text, then go back through with a few HTML tag templates on my clipboard / a separate text file, and add the appropriate flavor
It's been good for me thus far - like the toolkit is not very hard to understand, and lets me play quite a bit with how things get displayed

2026-03-18 01:21:13 UTC

- reply

Yeah, though if I'm remembering correctly, other typical webpage features were involved, like links to other pages on the domain & media display & fonts & whatnot
I talked more about the reason I'm looking for this thing in other replies below this post
I basically want this thing because the webpages provided neat little explanations of the code they'd used on the actual webpages, integrating the content with a demonstration of its functionality
I am seeing whether I can just learn a tiny bit more about HTML
since I'm using HTML already in Obsidian as a markup language (HTML tags work inside Markdown, which Obsidian can interpret)
and Obsidian comes with a core-plugin called Publish, which can just directly port documents in Obsidian to a webpage
And my brain was like
🧠💭 : didn't we see something 5+ years ago that was full of info that's exactly relevant to this use-case ... what was that called...
🧠💭 : fuck it was popular enough that *we saw it* despite not being into compsci/programming/webdev very much at the time
🧠💭 : well, the obvious place this hobby is going is something we'd yap about on pedi - may as well ask the people there if any of them know what the heck is this thing I can't exactly remember

2026-03-17 23:50:26 UTC

I have a question for people who are in the web dev community enough to know inside-jokes 👋
I vaguely remember seeing a series of webpages that were called something like "the bare minimum you need to make a website"
It was people publishing a webpage trying to outdo each other with the fewest lines of code while getting some key features like text display to work reliabily across multiple devices
And it turned into something of an escalating series websites that packed basic features into less & less HTML
This is apparently a thing Google is just incapable of digging up
The URLs to the sites were like "allyouneedforawebsite" or "technicallyawebsite" - not literally either of those examples, but something in that genre of "the url is just the title of the thing"
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Someone has to have posted about it online somewhere - my impression was that it was a "canon event," or at least mildly well-known, in some of the programming niches

2026-03-03 14:42:23 UTC

- reply

Preferences are personal and can't be productively argued with
What actions lead to what consequences is *not* just personal - it depends on how stuff actually turns out in different worlds
I prefer a place where I have to worry a bit less about some new person I meet being a villain - like someone who's a known catfisher but who still has an account that I might end up mistaking for a real person
Because even putting "known catfisher - this person's photos are stolen from others" in a tag on their account is "punishment" by your interpretation of that word
But like, I'm not gonna argue with your preferences, just express that mine are different & if the people deciding the policy care about making it to suit the preferences of people involved - I favor the environment created by having a wall around the garden and someone who plucks certain weeds out and throws them over that wall

2026-03-03 14:32:54 UTC

- reply

... I don't think this would result in the same kind of nice place that the current policy produces - but we might just disagree about which things are nice and should be able to exist if people want them.
I'm fine with that disagreement, I just wanna register a prediction that lots of people would be more unhappy than necessary if we tried to avoid "punishment" in all its forms - including the people who would end up getting "punished" - they'd have fewer nice things too.
Like ... The difference between a grocery store that has its products open on shelves and a grocery store that needs to keep all the products locked up & have employees come by to unlock it.
People would feel less free to speak about stuff if there wasn't gatekeeping on Pedi ... and, like, the FBI had a verified account where they posted videos of people being tortured for being paras - even if you could just block FBI@rape.pet

2026-03-03 14:25:12 UTC

- reply

Soooo.... People shouldn't get banned from Pedi for harassing people and saying slurs and otherwise breaking the rules?
Banning them is a "punishment" by the way you mean the word - if I'm understanding correctly.

2026-03-03 13:57:24 UTC

- reply

Okay, this gets fucking technical if I'm gonna explain it properly, but this is not just an excuse and bullshit
If you're going to describe everything that is imposed on someone which they don't prefer as "punishment" -
- then I want another word that differentiates between "stuff imposed on people which is purely to prevent them from continuing to run around in situations where they've been violating norms and harming others"
- and the *different* thing where "norm violators get put in situations that are supposed to use suffering to teach them to behave & so people know that norm violation will result in them suffering"
This is related to the decision-theory of threats
Agent 1 knows that Agent 2 disprefers Action X - so to get Agent 2 to do something that Agent 1 prefers, Agent 1 communicates to Agent 2 that they will do the thing Agent 2 disprefers unless Agent 2 behaves a certain way"
This is the basic shape of a threat
What *isn't* a threat is something like "Agent 3 communicates to Agent 2 a policy about their Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement - which wasn't decided on based on how Agent 2 will change their behavior given this information - just communicated in order to be helpful for Agent 2 in understanding which situations lead to Agent 3 taking certain actions *because of Agent 3's own best interests*"
If you're imagining stuff that would make someone "regret their actions," and then communicating to them that you're pre-committing to doing those things if they behave a certain way - you're threatening them.
You're committing to going out of your way to do things they wouldn't prefer in order to alter their behavior - andthe correct response to this is to *ignore the threat* because they're *only making the threat because they think you won't ignore it.*
It is different when you're saying "we will send you into exile for the sake of protecting the rest of our society from people who go around committing murder - but we aren't telling you not to murder because we say so and because we anti-incentivize it. Murder if you want, just know that 'The Public' is a safe-space that people have agreed ought to be kept free of murderers, so murdering will get you removed from 'The Public' since not murdering people is one of the conditions everyone agrees to in that space in order to be able to live better lives."
People who kill people in the public are still benefitting from others maintaining the agreement not to murder people - their lives in 'The Public' are nicer than alternative worlds where everyone ran around killing people. If people want to keep those nice things, they has to be a filter that seperates out people who have demonstrated they will violate the "social-contract."
Someone who kills is "flipping the table" when the "table" would not have been there if everyone went around flipping tables all the time.
So removing them from that place where they violated the agreements allowing that place to exist in the state that everyone prefers (being able to go out to a beach without worrying about being gunned down) is not a *threat.*
That policy of conditional reactions doesn't depend on believing that people will fear the consequences of breaking their agreement - you'd still behave the same way if you knew everyone *didn't make their decisions while considering how you'd react to their decisions.*

2026-03-03 13:26:24 UTC

- reply

Huh? No I'm not
Norway's brand of "justice" is based around exile & rehabilitation - instead of making people experience unnecessary misery in order to "punish" them
It's totally reasonable for the public to say "this person demonstrated that they aren't safe, we don't want them walking around"
But the punative justice ideology is more like "this person did a thing that makes us angry, they should be forced to shave their head and get sprayed with cold water and eat awful food and get beat up by guards that treat them like they're subhuman"

2026-03-03 13:19:13 UTC

- reply

Totally agree regarding punitive justice
People who kill or whatever shouldn't be walking around in public, free to keep wrecking things
But there's no need to yell at them or humiliate them or make them endure a grueling existence as "punishment"
Just send them somewhere where it's hard for them to kill people or smash nice stuff that people rely on to live good lives - until it seems pretty likely that they can handle a situation where they have more options
Norway does a pretty good job at this

2026-03-02 01:06:43 UTC

- reply

Which is more romantic, a rich guy that buys you expensive cum jewelry - or a poor guy who works hard to make you a fresh pearl necklace every day ?
#thinkaboutit

2026-03-01 22:39:36 UTC

- reply

I don't think I'm behaving unusually irrationally wrt my own (admittedly extremely high) uncertainty
This is not a precise policy that I follow meticulously, but my general mode of conducting myself is to run with my best guess, including my best guesses about how likely it is that I've somewhere gone completely off track in a way that's gonna end up causing me to smash my face into an unexpected obstacle
Like, the way you become less confused is by exposing your confusion to trials where it makes contact with reality
If you want to figure out exactly which string of bits was used as input to an algorithm like the generation of a IEEE standard string - you're gonna need to go looking for more evidence that's causally entangled with the contents of that input string
And the way you do that is by having a space of hypotheses about the exact string of bits, and going and looking for observations which occur with different probabilities given the exact strings in that hypothesis space
So the correct way to deliberately choose such that your belief-state is updated necessarily means that your actions are dependent on which hypotheses your considering
Which is what I've been attempting - at no point in this conversation did you say explicitly "I am conversant in epistemology to a degree where I can evaluate your arguments" - yet I am attempting arguments based on formal epistemology anyway because one of the "hypotheses" ( / ways I'm imagining you) is that I'm talking to a person who would find these arguments legible enough to think about productively
And sure you could say that was an *easy* type of guess if it were true - or that I was foolishly running out ahead of myself if it was false - but it'd take substantially more deliberate effort on my part to do my very best not to single out any hypothesis if I didn't have enough evidence to narrow down the space of possibilities to where that hypothesis is actually distinguished enough to be worth effort considering
You're setting a bar that's higher than any human can actually achieve, and even people who do such a good job that they happen to manage to narrow down a space of hypotheses to just 2 will have to run a test between them, and if the test looks like engaging with one of them as if it were true then 50% of those worlds could have someone saying "woah hold on there, you couldn't possibly know that for certain, that's a space of around a hundred million possibilities and you only had 27 bits of evidence!"
So like, roughly, I just make guesses about who I'm interacting with and what thoughts they're having which cause them to say the things they do - and then I engage with those thoughts and see if I'm making good guesses or not
And yeah, I do it in a messy way, I don't even use a notepad and 30 minutes of clock time to review all the stuff I know - not unless I feel forced to be *really* careful
I've just tried to train my intuitions via situations where I can see roughly the correct amount & location of uncertainty I ought to be feeling - and then in stuff like social interactions, I just hope that my intuitions and my habits in translating those intuitions into actions don't end up being so disasterous that something unrecoverable happens
& It doesn't seem like this was unrecoverable - I may possibly be annoying you a little bit by being pretty blatant about assuming things about you for the purpose of choosing what to say - but I'm not seeing signals that we're about to become mortal enemies or something 😅

2026-03-01 21:22:00 UTC

- reply

Nope, if I'm correctly understanding the point you're trying to make, that's not what I am trying to do precisely
It is not directly analogous to an epistemic mishandling of "uncertainty" in a situation where you have to model the relationship between the approximation of a number using floating point arithmetic and the information that was used as input to the algorithm which produced an output string of bits in a particular format
This is ~ "a level deeper" in probability theory and information theory
Your words have some Shannon mutual information with your mind state, and when I see your words, my mind state is systematically altered by which specific visual inputs I'm getting
So my internal "map of the world" is being updated by some amount of "signal" who's source is the things going on inside your head
Sure, I am not the type of entity that can make a lossless Bayesian update on every single bit of information I observe which I could not perfectly predict in advance
The presence or absense of an arbitrary typo or capitalization choice in your text does not directly cause me to take an exhaustive space of possibilities and eliminate up to 50% of them
But I *am* "smarter" than a rock, who's causal relationship to events in its environment cannot at all be usefully predicted by using "probabilistic reasoning & planning in intelligent agents" as a shortcut to predicting it's behavior - when you don't have the "hardware" to just compute directly what the system will output in a specific situation
Specifically, I am using parts of the human brain that were selected for by natural selection in order to make humans predictable to other humans in situations where reproductive fitness was affected systematically by statistical-regularities in outcomes depending on differences in ability
Yeah, that system I'm using is a cludge of spaghetti code, but I'm made of meat and not anywhere near the level you'd need to figure out a human brain by simulating the work of particular brain regions
Instead, humans do a thing with ~ "mirror neurons" where observing the behavior of another person causes our brains to switch to "simulation mode" and ask ourselves what sort of things *we* would be thinking if we were exhibiting that behavior
And the reason this particular cognitive ability got "built," step by step through repeated tests of the utility of each new tiny piece, was because it does actually allow people to productively relate to each other
I am conscious of the fact that I'm *guessing* - in my top-post on this thread I said almost immediately that I *think* the following was the sentiment you were expressing
I wasn't claiming direct knowledge of your mind state, I was choosing my words to try to relay an observation I was making about my own mind state - a mind state that had Shannon mutual-information with your mindstate
You can tell because I was successfully talking to you about stuff you had said *at all* instead of just hitting you with a string of totally unpredictable words that didn't mean anything even vaguely resembling stuff you had said
Sure, maybe you got the impression that I was "reading too much into the very small amount of information you had exposed" - but I'd point out that the post you made that I initially replied to is not a *completely novel thought.*
I've seen lots of examples of people expressing very similar thoughts, and talked to them, and seen evidence about what sorts of other things they tend to say / do when they're people who express thoughts like that
And I can look inside my own mind and ask "what sort of person am I most likely to be if I were a person that would say something like this - in this place - and with these surrounding behaviors (boosting my own post, having these other posts/words on my profile, etc.)"
So I felt like I had something like a working-theory about what sort of thing might be useful for you to hear
Then you replied, and my thinking continues, and I got more evidence about what stuff "Sofia" outputs in situations, and some of that evidence was about things I had tried to deliberately predict in advance - which is useful for slightly subtle probability theory reasons related to choosing experiments rather than just updating a model based on a non-interactive feed of observations.
But the point is, the situation is more analogous to a Bayesian reasoner like AIXI being fed a tape of bits, and updating a prior to assign more probability to certain algorithms hypothesized to have been the thing that output that string of bits
And the big emotionally salient part of my "utility function" (humans aren't nearly coherent enough to really have one, but a thing like a utility function inside me) is just that you and the world are not worse off for having interacted with me -
Which is to say, I'm really just trying to help
(And also it's fun to talk about this stuff and I'm full of a complicated mix of hard-to-name impulses related to "explaining stuff, specifically in this situation : the stuff I think I've figured out about thinking / learning / communicating )

2026-03-01 19:33:24 UTC

- reply

Words aren't just about themselves!
Not a single one of anyone's thoughts is just a series of words in a human language that can be directly and completely expressed on paper!
Words are a pattern in sounds or in light or in texture like braille - when a human mind generates them its doing so using processes that are not themselves made out of words - and when a human mind interprets them it cannot rely merely on a series of recursively nested definitions & semantic rules !!!!!
Sorry I'm using so many exclamation points, but like, I'm noticing we might have some really really fundamental disagreements on epistemology that'll make it really tough to communicate about these kind of things
I am totally fine just giving up on trying to find ways to cross this gap in how we understand things -
the kind of tone I'm *inferring* in your message ...
(like, my best guess among other guesses about "how pleasant is Sofia finding this conversation)
... based your choices of words (from all the other words - as far as I could predict in advance - that you *could've* possibly selected to express your thoughts, which my brain is trained by experience to associate with different mental states) ...
... leads me to guess that you're not finding this conversation very rewarding / enjoyable / amusing / helpful
So, if you don't wanna continue, you don't have to say anything - or say something that expressed clearly that you'd rather just have the last word and leave it there
I'm not literally guaranteed to reply to everything else - but I have a tendency to reply to *many* things that are not "someone stops talking to me" or "someone expresses a clear wish to stop hearing me talk at them"
(I wrote this comment trying to express roughly three things : )
1. how I currently view our difference of opinion on what it's reasonable to expect for others to think about what you say
2. a practical example of my own thought process in interpreting the information-content of something someone has written (trying to guess whether you're enjoying this conversation)
3. An offer to just stop here if, for whatever reason, our disagreements are not something you wanna continue engaging with
(I of course, had numerous other subtle intentions in word choice, sentence structure, and which sentences referenced which parts of other sentences - but there's no way you'd be able to guess which thoughts I was having exactly in making all of those choices - the *meanings* I was grasping internally and trying to reflect in my use of language)

2026-03-01 18:39:37 UTC

- reply

I suppose I poorly phrased a few things, and misinterpreted which point you were trying to make when you said "I wish the worst"
In my defense, usually when people say things like you said, there's a feeling of *spite* that they're nurturing in their hearts
Like even if I concluded some group was too toxic to be allowed to continue existing, I'd say something like "you need to be stopped, even if that means removing you from existence - if I have no better options, know that I'm going to accept you as a justified casualty in improving the world"
The choice of the word "worst" calls to mind connotations of *harm beyond what's needed to stop someone from causing even more harm*
But that might be a perspective coming from an intuitive grasp of the correct decision-theory on the topic of "threats"
It is far more common for people to believe that "threaten to do something really bad to someone to make them do what you want them to do" is just a totally valid and non-problematic worldview - as long as you're only thinking about torturing *BAD* people
But maybe what you meant by "worst" wasn't "I want you to suffer so that you regret choosing poorly - and to send a message to others who might choose poorly"
Maybe it was something like "I really hope you don't get lucky and have a pretty good life despite being so bad and dumb - because that would mean that out world wasn't reliably incentivizing being a good person"
Uhh, I'm genuinely not trying to do any "gotchas" nor *deliberately* misinterpreting your words
Words passing between two people are just a really low bandwidth / high-noise channel for communicating mind-states
Even if you feel like you've said something really precisely, and no one can possibly misinterpret what you *really* mean - this is an "illusion of transparency"
No one's a mind reader, and even several thousands of words of language are not enough bits of information for even really smart brains to become extremely certain of all of the nuances of meaning that the author was tracking internally
Uhhh, point #2, the choices people make about "trying to limit their flaws" is also just something that happens in human brains - there's no higher power one can consult within their own ~ umwelt ~ that can give them access to a guide about good and bad choices
All their choices about stuff are just incidental to which things are actually happening in the goop between their ears
It's fine to judge them - like, it's fine to look at patterns of behavior and make inferences about what kinds of things specific people are more likely to do, and what consequences those things would have
Reasoning like that, judging people, is one of the parts of reality that influences what kind of futures we end up in - just like the presence or absence of a butterfly flapping it's wings affects the weather
So yeah, it's fine to look at someone and learn things about the most likely ways they are shaped inside their minds, and to use that understanding to choose how you should handle them
But I think, for reasons of my own morality and the ethics that are a consequence of it, that it is the wrong path to wish excessively bad things on anyone
And I'm guessing, because we share ancestry and you're my kin, that you have a lot of the same things inside of you that made *me* most compatible with moral concern for all sapient life
I don't know that for sure, but when I was deciding how to handle what I saw you writing, I was making a guess / judgement about where your mind probably was, and a guess / judgement about what kinds of things you might come to believe were true / correct as you learned more
I was also guessing that I wasn't gonna be right in enough detail for you to be unable to find *flaws* in my understanding of you - I do know my own limitations
But if you require people to understand you well enough that you can't spot flaws in their arguments with your perspective ...
Well, it seems potentially hazardous to self-improvement, because you're usually gonna sound more convincing to yourself than anyone else can sound while talking to you
But whether any of this will end up being helpful is a guess on my part - or a hope - or something ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
I'm not actually opposed to going around yelling at people for being evil idiots, I was just worried that you might be stuck in an unhappy headspace - one that's pretty common for people who can't help but think about how screwed up some / most / all humans are

2026-03-01 17:42:50 UTC

Okay, long post about mindset and humanity and whatnot
Firstly, Sofia, I'm gonna talk a lot about this and not do a whole lot of agreeing with it and cheering for it -
but I wanna first say that I have a lot of sympathy for this feeling I think you're expressing
Something like :
"Fuck you, yes it's my business if you're running around being bad at thinking, learning things, and communicating - its my planet too, and you're making it suck more than it needs to by acting this way"
But...
Personally, I feel like my sanity would be damaged if I couldn't ... *feel* that disatisfaction with how much people are bad at stuff, without also feeling stuff like hatred and anger and malice
y'know, i don't wanna run around constantly having feelings rush out of my soul like intangible knives flying out to bring a ruinous curse down on the lives of everyone that is not meeting my "minimum standards"
even if I could calm myself down and remind myself that people are still kinda cute even if they're ignorant and silly in a way that's causing immense harm ...
i'd still be having to constantly beat back those dark thoughts - which is draining work
it just wouldn't be healthy for me,
and maybe more importantly, it's not actually part of the worldview that I find most helpful
I'll explain, the worldview I'm talking about, but this gets kinda mindfucky if you're not ready to ... sorta ... think like you're looking at the world spinning through its ages from a third-person perspective floating in space
but for what it's worth :
people being bad at thinking, learning, and communicating does not end with people failing to be curious and look for the truth
people also make stupid mistakes while thinking, learning, and communicating that take a whole bunch of different shapes
so many shapes of flaws, you can just keep following links about "biases" and "functional neuroscience" and whatnot -
"another one & another one & another one ..."
and if you follow that rabbit hole then you end up discovering that humans aren't just flawed, they're kinda "made out of flaws" in a deep sense
the first nude in the "showing my cock" series pinned on my profile has me posing with a behavioral economics book - which is a topic that is a good place to start for seeing research about all the flaws that form the human mind
the flaws were curated to kinda mimic the shape of flawless things - which is why stuff made out of fat and blood can walk on the moon at all - there was a type of shape we got closer to, and that shape was a true "source of power"
the flawless thing would be "patterns of behavior outlined by coherence & inexploitability theorems in agency" -
where you can show, in formal mathematics, that agents do systematically worse for themselves every time they depart from those abstract ideals
so evolution cludged together software and hardware that was able to better and better imitate those ideal forms
but nevertheless it's not even an *approximation* from direct example
evolution is blind and mindless, even if there was an example of a flawless mind in our universe (extremely unlikely,) evolution still would not have been able to see it and copy even a single part of its shape
instead, the human mind's power, such that we put footprints on a rock out in the vacuum of space, was just a consequence of an incidental statistical pattern that occured in our ancestral history
some genomic patterns produce, on average, more copies of themselves than others, given certain features of their environment -
and it just so happened that these statistical pressures - influencing which of the genomic patterns eventually spread to the whole population - were being affected by the actions of things which behaved like agents
and since the survival/spread of genomic patterns were encountering situations which mimicked the abstract math of "agency" - patterns which made creatures that behaved more like the ideal math ended up having advantages
(i'm gonna mention the name coined by the person who - afaik - first expressed this conceptualization of the origins of "inherently flawed but still kinda useful" human cognitive abilities)
(godshatter)
(it's just such a cool name - it's a *weird* way of looking at stuff, and it's gonna probably take some *work* before anyone who googles it is able to see the simple and direct way in which it's just a true thing about reality - but it's worth throwing out the "godshatter" breadcrumb thats a trail-marker for the start of that rabbit hole)
... which is all to say, if you decide that people should have nothing but the worst happen to them because they fucking suck at thinking / learning / communicating, you're gonna have to constantly battle with yourself about whether or not *everyone* is horrible and deserves the worst things happening to them
and, idk, i wouldn't recommend going down that road
#note1mt4…wjth